Can An Unregistered Patient Have A Caregiver That Is Protected By Section 8?

[GregS]

I expect it will well enough be a train wreck.

It will largely depend on some answers.

[GregS]

I'll lock this if you keep bumping your own thread.

'nuff said. But Mal doesn't like me editing posts after they have been initially posted, and I respect the hell outa him. He finds it annoying.

 

I was unaware that what I was doing is not polite and a point of etiquette. I regret the error.

 

In fairness, it is not my thread.

Edited July 25, 2013 by GregS

[Ms Chocolate]

In reply to the OP - NO! 

 

A CG is registered under a registered patient.

[GregS]

In reply to the OP - NO! 

 

A CG is registered under a registered patient.

We are waiting on a more authoritative response to the question. It is apparently not as simple as yes or no and It is widley agreed that details and positions have been adequately laid out. If you have anything pertinent to add please do, but read through the postings regarding the topic, both here, http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/43776-mi-appeals-court-rules-that-medical-marijuana-edibles-are-not-usable-marijuana/ and here http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/43786-meeting-in-lansing-7-16-13/ where the discussion can be found. It ain't always pretty. But hey. C'est la interwebs.

Edited July 25, 2013 by GregS

[SFC]

Greg absolutely refuses to except reality Ms Chocolate..

[GregS]

Let me try to put this another way, since you guys are still not getting this. It is completely wrong to say that somebody "can" do something protected by section 8. Section 8 is the embodiment of the fourth item on the ballot language: registered or unregistered patients or caregivers may use it in any prosecution involving marijuana. That means if it works, it worked for whatever you were doing.

 

However, even if a patient or caregiver successfully defends themselves while possessing say, 10 pounds, it does not mean they "can" possess 10 pounds. If they get caught with 10 pounds again, they would likely be arrested again, unless the circumstances are exceptional.

ty

[GregS]

What do you think Townsend?

[GregS]

But zap, why can't they do something protected by sec. 8?

Edited July 25, 2013 by GregS

[imiubu]

You are bumping your own thread again Greg

[ozzrokk]

Well like I said when a section 8 defense says an unregistered patient AND THEIR CAREGIVER....... That means something. If the patient was not registered then how could their caregiver? I know this does not answer all the questions but it DOES answer the OP's question.

[mibrains]

ok

so I thought I might chime in for a dose of morning thoughts..

 

over the past several days we in my inner circle have discussed this at length.

 

finally we all tend to agree.

 

sec 8 as I understand it:

 

first some background.

I developed some wonderful medibles that took several months to refine the recipe.  I used cannabutter that I prepared in the crock pot on low heat for 20 hours. then made very potent very tasty marmels (medicated caramels).

 

we discussed the ramifications all along about weight.  about how the marmels are section 8 because they would always weigh more than 71.25 grams (2.5oz) for one batch.

now fast forward to this COA decision and we are discussing the idea that somehow the heating of the cannabis then straining the leaf material is the problem here according to the COA. more so than the weight issue.  not having the flower or leaf material as described in the act left in the mix is one of the areas of concern as it is not then a mixture.. in becomes an extract by definition.

 

solution?  (for medibles.. not oil)

it is absolutely possible to take the same amount of cannabis as before.. and decarboxolize it in the oven on low heat and then grind the cannabis to powder.

 

you now have a weighable cannabis preparation that i could dose directly into the medible while i mix it or bake it.

 

I KNOW I will have to adjust for flavor and strength again.  but that should not be any problem.

 

this means you can make a batch of medibles on the spot (any type) and add the measured preparation before mixing or baking.  with some practice it would not be difficult to adjust for taste and potency.

 

that allows you to produce your own medible for home use without the blind fear of persecution.  if I was brought up in front of a judge.. and I had a batch of brownies that was made with cannabutter or I have a batch of brownies made with cannabis preparation in measured amounts that has the flowers present.... which one would you think a judge would be likely to allow?

 

both are section 8 defenses.

 

it seems that section 8 is not the "wide open will garner any ability to utilize cannabis you see fit" defense that it pretends to be.

 

you must still be in the realm of the established guidelines and be able to prove you have a medical reason for producing the medible, or extract.  section 8 is meant to protect those folks who must stray outside the written guidelines to be able to achieve their medical needs.  better have a dam good reason.

 

Greg.

the SC said that the medical use of the transferor is not satisfied during a transaction unless you connect via the registry.

even with  a signed, notarized and executed document... how would you get around that?  if the supreme court in Michigan said already that a patient can be protected to acquire from any source however the provider is not... then it matters not how you try to circumnavigate the verbiage of the act with paperwork.. it has been determined already that you MUST register via LARA to receive the benefits of protection from arrest (section 4)..

 

Section 8 has a place.  to be sure.

and discussions have and do take place on a regular basis around here.

 

the main problem with your fundraising idea greg is that no one has stepped up to be a leader.  you cannot ask for donations for a blind cause.  the idea while solid and strong is not enough.  it has to be executed and followed painstakingly.... 

not to mention there is no one out there right now stepping up and capable of pulling together all the cannabis groups and ending most of the disparity. 

 

it is a matter of trust.

I would not trust anyone to manage a fund for a defense where it has not been properly vetted.  money is to hard to come by... 

 

who would decide who gets help and how much help?

who would manage the income?

who would manage the outgo? 

what happens when everyone gets arrested at the same time?

why would you even suggest to someone to try any idea you are not willing or able to do yourself?

in the case of a patient fund set aside to protect them when needed there is no way it can be done correctly without narrowing the coverage and making an insurance underwriter type system out of it... good luck with that.

 

If you find yourself in court trying to defend your actions against a prosecutor (the people of the state of Michigan) then I would say... you better be ready to defend your position to your last breath.. and you my friend are not.

you said you are not capable of going to court as your disability keeps you from being mobile.. please I will ask you stop trying to convince others to try any behavior that is not clearly outlined in section 4 until you yourself are in the front row leading the charge.. otherwise it is not fair, not justified, and not cool.

[Restorium2]

If you threw yourself on the mercy of the court because you were helping your Aunt Betty deal with the last days of her cancer then a section 8 would probably fly in that situation. You just might be covered as an unregistered caregiver. What I'm saying is that you would need a compelling story/reason why you did not register.

[Natesilver]

Well like I said when a section 8 defense says an unregistered patient AND THEIR CAREGIVER....... That means something. If the patient was not registered then how could their caregiver? I know this does not answer all the questions but it DOES answer the OP's question.

Good point.

[bobandtorey]

ok

so I thought I might chime in for a dose of morning thoughts..

 

over the past several days we in my inner circle have discussed this at length.

 

finally we all tend to agree.

 

sec 8 as I understand it:

 

first some background.

I developed some wonderful medibles that took several months to refine the recipe.  I used cannabutter that I prepared in the crock pot on low heat for 20 hours. then made very potent very tasty marmels (medicated caramels).

 

we discussed the ramifications all along about weight.  about how the marmels are section 8 because they would always weigh more than 71.25 grams (2.5oz) for one batch.

now fast forward to this COA decision and we are discussing the idea that somehow the heating of the cannabis then straining the leaf material is the problem here according to the COA. more so than the weight issue.  not having the flower or leaf material as described in the act left in the mix is one of the areas of concern as it is not then a mixture.. in becomes an extract by definition.

 

solution?  (for medibles.. not oil)

it is absolutely possible to take the same amount of cannabis as before.. and decarboxolize it in the oven on low heat and then grind the cannabis to powder.

 

you now have a weighable cannabis preparation that i could dose directly into the medible while i mix it or bake it.

 

I KNOW I will have to adjust for flavor and strength again.  but that should not be any problem.

 

this means you can make a batch of medibles on the spot (any type) and add the measured preparation before mixing or baking.  with some practice it would not be difficult to adjust for taste and potency.

 

that allows you to produce your own medible for home use without the blind fear of persecution.  if I was brought up in front of a judge.. and I had a batch of brownies that was made with cannabutter or I have a batch of brownies made with cannabis preparation in measured amounts that has the flowers present.... which one would you think a judge would be likely to allow?

 

both are section 8 defenses.

 

it seems that section 8 is not the "wide open will garner any ability to utilize cannabis you see fit" defense that it pretends to be.

 

you must still be in the realm of the established guidelines and be able to prove you have a medical reason for producing the medible, or extract.  section 8 is meant to protect those folks who must stray outside the written guidelines to be able to achieve their medical needs.  better have a dam good reason.

 

Greg.

the SC said that the medical use of the transferor is not satisfied during a transaction unless you connect via the registry.

even with  a signed, notarized and executed document... how would you get around that?  if the supreme court in Michigan said already that a patient can be protected to acquire from any source however the provider is not... then it matters not how you try to circumnavigate the verbiage of the act with paperwork.. it has been determined already that you MUST register via LARA to receive the benefits of protection from arrest (section 4)..

 

Section 8 has a place.  to be sure.

and discussions have and do take place on a regular basis around here.

 

the main problem with your fundraising idea greg is that no one has stepped up to be a leader.  you cannot ask for donations for a blind cause.  the idea while solid and strong is not enough.  it has to be executed and followed painstakingly.... 

not to mention there is no one out there right now stepping up and capable of pulling together all the cannabis groups and ending most of the disparity. 

 

it is a matter of trust.

I would not trust anyone to manage a fund for a defense where it has not been properly vetted.  money is to hard to come by... 

 

who would decide who gets help and how much help?

who would manage the income?

who would manage the outgo? 

what happens when everyone gets arrested at the same time?

why would you even suggest to someone to try any idea you are not willing or able to do yourself?

in the case of a patient fund set aside to protect them when needed there is no way it can be done correctly without narrowing the coverage and making an insurance underwriter type system out of it... good luck with that.

 

If you find yourself in court trying to defend your actions against a prosecutor (the people of the state of Michigan) then I would say... you better be ready to defend your position to your last breath.. and you my friend are not.

you said you are not capable of going to court as your disability keeps you from being mobile.. please I will ask you stop trying to convince others to try any behavior that is not clearly outlined in section 4 until you yourself are in the front row leading the charge.. otherwise it is not fair, not justified, and not cool.

Thank you for posting 

don't worry he won't ever do it

[GregS]

Thanks for your thoughtful and germane questions.

 

the SC said that the medical use of the transferor (sic) is not satisfied during a transaction unless you connect via the registry.

even with  a signed, notarized and executed document... how would you get around that?

 

Sec. 8, as observed by Cav, the law states, per 8(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.

 

That transaction is defensible.

 

A duly notarized and properly executed document that clearly spells out the unregistered relationship where a physician has stated,,,, and that use is intended for treatment of the patient's allowed condition would be admissible, is not hearsay, and is defensible. It would meet two of the three prongs of the required defense.

 

it has been determined already that you MUST register via LARA to receive the benefits of protection from arrest (section 4)...

 

I have not and will not argue otherwise.

 

if I was brought up in front of a judge.. and I had a batch of brownies that was made with cannabutter or I have a batch of brownies made with cannabis preparation in measured amounts that has the flowers present.... which one would you think a judge would be likely to allow?

 

8(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...

 

Resin in any extract form is included in the PHC/CSA definition of marijuana that is used in sec. 8, and is not specifically spelled out in the sec. 4 definition of "usable marijuaha.

 

Both your examples are defensible; one no more than the other.

 

Section 8 has a place.  to be sure.

and discussions have and do take place on a regular basis around here.

 

That makes me so happy I could just pee. It is a recent phenomenon. Three threads and several hundreds of, and maybe more than a thousand, posts regarding the topic were censored before we got to this one, which in large part became workable when the community saw the government overreach and many showed an interest in taking a hard look at the AD. I am pleased that the conversation has finally arrived after those three aborted attempts. Your statement is not entirely accurate.

 

I would not trust anyone to manage a fund for a defense where it has not been properly vetted.

 

This conversation is entirely about vetting the angles.

 

there is no one out there right now stepping up and capable of pulling together all the cannabis groups and ending most of the disparity.

 

No news there. How about you? I would like to give it a go from my home office, despite the critics. it would remain to see if I had the support of enough people. I can count on my fingers the number of critics who have spoken up, and l have received well wishes and statements of support from several points of the compass. If I am not that guy, or even a supporting player, then who? Is anyone else even willing? I have been advised by MMMA management that participatory activism is not an objective any more, but rather that the organization intends solely to inform.

 

who would decide who gets help and how much help?

 

The fund managers would make that determination: a formal business entity with officers and a treasury with intrinsic checks to ensure it is properly managed. I submit that anyone who has fully paid the premium would be eligible. Please remember Hayduke's comments regarding the limits that would likely preclude appeals, which he stated come in at about 50k. I expect we can begin by offering the benefit up to and including circuit court. It is a stretch to think the plan would generate enough money for appeals. After all, as long as defendants have their ducks in a row, the charges are required to be dismissed in circuit court. If a case were to go beyond that, and depending on the facts of the case, we might be able to continue to help with appeals depending on the strength of the fund. Otherwise common fund raising can go on. In fact, that old school fund raising is a part of the proposal.

 

who would manage the income?

who would manage the outgo? 

 

Again, the fund managers.

 

what happens when everyone gets arrested at the same time?

 

That would be unlikely. Persons are generally, though not always, smart enough to keep their dealings discreet.

 

why would you even suggest to someone to try any idea you are not willing or able to do yourself?

 

For a number of reasons. If I were to be found out of compliance with sec. 4 it is pretty much assured that I would be subject to arrest. Do I need to repeat my statement regarding discretion? I have been called stupid, but considering the sources, consider it a compliment.

 

you said you are not capable of going to court as your disability keeps you from being mobile..

 

A couple of things. I am not entirely immobilized. It is difficult and some days I am not. Peanutbutter pushed me in my wheelchair to a new conditions panel meeting in April and I am grateful for that and his company. I have been going to court regularly to support a defendant in a case that involves the AD, and drove to Lansing to start this thing. Sometimes I am okay to go. Other times I use assistive devices. In all cases I eat pain. Then in regard to being involved within my limitations, I consider the notion that this is 2013. We no longer have knobs on the teevee, and get more than three broadcast stations, or radio. Electronic communication is all around us. Much can be done as an activist. I am properly  equipped for that, and have communicated with key players from my home office to get stuff done.

 

Beyond that, your marmels are only covered under sec. 8, Growgoddess's fine work with smokeless extracts is protected under sec. 8, and lotions, salves, and tinctures are protected under sec. 8. Any patient, registered or unregistered, can engage with anyone who meets definition of a caregiver. How many caregivers do you think a patient can have and use the sec. 8 defense? How many patients do you think a caregiver can support and use the sec. 8 defense? Would that or would it not improve access?

 

Would you expect that law enforcement would get fed up with arresting people only to have their cases dismissed? Are there other upshots that would discourage the government from continuing its determined efforts to marginalize or eliminate its actions against us?

 

The purpose of the fund is not solely intended to pay for defense, although that is primary. There are valuable objectives within the community that would benefit from some funding. Fransisco and company were continually underfunded and disappeared. Cain did nothing to raise money for the cause, we are left with our mouths hanging open and our hands on our azzes in his debris while the government continues to erode the law.

 

I am ducky enough with letting the market issue go, largely because of risk. It was considered as a marketing venue for the plan. So people would work full time to provide a valuable service to the community. Why would they not be paid?

 

There is still food for thought here, and I appreciate honest and productive commentary that uses facts to establish the veracity of comments. Insults, lies, speculation, and hyperbole are not welcome, and the management has finally said that it is not okay with that. For that reason my hat is off to them.

Edited July 26, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

If you threw yourself on the mercy of the court because you were helping your Aunt Betty deal with the last days of her cancer then a section 8 would probably fly in that situation. You just might be covered as an unregistered caregiver. What I'm saying is that you would need a compelling story/reason why you did not register.

I think not resto. I am still waiting for an authoritative answer whether or not there is a show cause requirement in sec. 8 or if a judge can rightly order one.

 

In other words, you don't have to tell the judge anything he does not need to know. Without an order to show cause, he cannot compel you to.

[Restorium2]

Greg,

You are our Larry Flynt. Keep on truckin'. OOPS. He's rich and powerful.

 

Edited July 26, 2013 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

I think not resto. I am still waiting for an authoritative answer whether or not there is a show cause requirement in sec. 8 or if a judge can rightly order one.

 

In other words, you don't have to tell the judge anything he does not need to know. Without an order to show cause, he cannot compel you to.

Section 8 is ALL about showing cause.

[mibrains]

we do our solemn best around here.

 

I am glad you get out.  I did not intend to offend and hope my comments were not taken that way.. 

 

my statements about leaders.. who?  I ask the same question right back to you my friend.. I am not sure what kind of super power person it will take to coral the ideas around such passionate people.

 

A duly notarized and properly executed document that clearly spells out the unregistered relationship where a physician has stated,,,, and that use is intended for treatment of the patient's allowed condition would be admissible, is not hearsay, and is defensible. It would meet two of the three prongs of the required defense

 

but only for the patient... as per the SC

 

the patients unregistered caregiver would have to be an extenuating circumstance and one of dire need to go to sec 8.  like a husband or wife..... a roommate.. a loved one.. a lifetime friend..

I honestly do not think a statement..notarized or not..will satisfy the judicial need for the current accepted definition of medical need as the courts have been interpreting.

 

this is where our opinions split.

 

also where my circle have decided to be as safe as defensible in this environment. some people will continue to utilize other forms of ingestible materials.  those people must be aware of the danger of judicial persecution.

I fear any idea to go into a section 8 sanctioned relationship might happen without people understanding how the courts work.

you will be arrested

you will have things seized

as CL said they will NEVER tire of taking the low hanging fruit off the tree.. they will prosecute as many cases as they can.. and you might be giving them plenty of ammunition..

 

I ask you to please be careful when presenting your ideas.

 

they are arguably plausible... but absolutely dangerous and need to have considerable resources to back them up.

Edited July 26, 2013 by mibrains

[GregS]

Greg,

You are our Larry Flynt. Keep on truckin'.

 

If that is a compliment, thanks. If not, thanks anyhow. I think.

Edited July 26, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Just got some word back from Cav.  He'll post later but the long and the short of it is pretty simple.  No way.

 

Zap, I tend to agree with your insight of this thread.  Waste of time and very weak concept which is potentially dangerous for patients.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

I think not resto. I am still waiting for an authoritative answer whether or not there is a show cause requirement in sec. 8 or if a judge can rightly order one.

 

In other words, you don't have to tell the judge anything he does not need to know. Without an order to show cause, he cannot compel you to.

This is rather silly.

 

With an unregistered patient, they will end up in court proving they are actually a patient, which is not easy and is very expensive.  It is doable, but better to simply follow the rules and register.  Remember you are asking for special permission to use a schedule 1 controlled substance, so play the game right.  As for a caregiver for an unregistered patient, you are really going out on a limb now.  Not only does the patient have to prove they are a patient, now the 'caregiver' has to prove they are somehow related to the patients and authorized to transfer a schedule 1 controlled substance to them.  They also have to prove they are authorized to even have a schedule 1 controlled substance in the first place.

 

So yes, a lot of people have to prove their actions.  Surely common sense told you that already.  Anytime you do something that is not explicitly within the law or rules, you have to be prepared to justify your actions or face the consequences.  This is a very dangerous path to tread and I have NO idea why you would even suggest people put themselves at risk like this unless you have some agenda of your own for putting them in harm's way.

 

You should seriously rethink your position and decide if you want to make a positive contribution to patients.  Otherwise, I am afraid folks will get hurt and I am amazed the board is tolerating it, though it seems like enough is finally enough.

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

if I was brought up in front of a judge

if you were you wont be able to say anything to a judge

we where in front of many judge's for 4 + years and the only thing we allowed to say where our names 

i did try one time to tell the judge to have a nice day and she turn and said i Can't talk to you

[bobandtorey]

I think not resto. I am still waiting for an authoritative answer whether or not there is a show cause requirement in sec. 8 or if a judge can rightly order one.

 

In other words, you don't have to tell the judge anything he does not need to know. Without an order to show cause, he cannot compel you to.

Thank you

i would suggest that you go in a court room one time it's their you will find out how a Court room works and it's not what you think 

i will say i sure didn't have a clue until i did 

It's a wake-up call

[GregS]

We're good. This is productive conversation. Thank you.

 

Leadership with this bunch is dealing is like trying to drain the swamp while up to your azz in alligators. Someone opinionated, determined, and informed will do.

 

in this environment. some people will continue to utilize other forms of ingestible (sic) materials.  those people must be aware of the danger of judicial persecution. I fear any idea to go into a section 8 sanctioned relationship might happen without people understanding how the courts work.

 

Precisely the point, along with the notion that they should be fully aware as can be managed what the law offers and how it works.

 

the patients unregistered caregiver would have to be an extenuating circumstance and one of dire need to go to sec 8.  like a husband or wife..... a roommate.. a loved one.. a lifetime friend..

 

It has been now established that unregistered caregivers are eligible to use the defense. What is a caregiver?

 

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.

 

Do you see a requirement to support your statement?

 

also where my circle have decided to be as safe as defensible in this environment. some people will continue to utilize other forms of ingestible materials.  those people must be aware of the danger of judicial persecution.

 

To complete that thought I would add that being discreet and informed is essential.

 

I fear any idea to go into a section 8 sanctioned relationship might happen without people understanding how the courts work.

 

I've been wondering if there is some kind of procedural flow chart that is reasonably simple. Will one of our fine legal minds respond please?

 

you will be arrested

you will have things seized

as CL said they will NEVER tire of taking the low hanging fruit off the tree.. they will prosecute as many cases as they can.. and you might be giving them plenty of ammunition..

 

Maybe. Being informed and discreet with a ready defense in your pocket can only help.

 

Yes. We do have differences of opinion that do not square with each other. I think a very few of them are irreconcilable. But the facts have been pretty well said, and it is irresponsible not to consider them closely.

 

I ask you to please be careful when presenting your ideas.

 

they are arguably plausible... but absolutely dangerous and need to have considerable resources to back them up.

 

The fund is intended to provide those resources. I see potential harm in not informing people because they might trip over the truth.

Edited July 28, 2013 by GregS