Can A Card Holder Sell To Another Cardholder?

[Cap'N Kush]

Do that with a cop and you will see how far the argument gets you. Right to County and a conviction.

 

Dr. Bob

Acualty doctor bob, a Pataint can obtain meds from a non registerd CG, ( Pot Dealer ) and are totally protected. The Pot dealer isn't. But the Pataint is. It's in the law. But the hole CPS thing was / is in the law to, but it didnt stop them from kidnapping that family's little girl.

 

Also just out of curosity, and this isn't directed at you Bob. But if you guys really have this much interaction with law enforcement, you really need to rethink what you got going on in your life. Seriously.

 

Honastly, if you guys are that concerned about weed, and sellin to cops, then you should sell it to kids. Middle schoolers pay the most, high school next, then collage. I'm kidding of course. Don't sell pot to middle school kids.

 

But kids can get cards in Mi. So.....

[Cap'N Kush]

All you need is for the judge trying you to decide that it's illegal, and that's after the police, who think it is illegal, have arrested you and trashed all your equipment and plants. It's also after you may, or may not, have paid several thousand dollars in bail money.

That's if the judge does. My point was that its not set in stone, and there is know case law as of yet. As far the police trashing your house, if you win, id bet you would have a really nice settlment comeing your way.

 

But yea I totally know what your saying. I have had my house trashed before, many times. It's not fun, it really puts a damper on things.

 

Really though, the question he asked, was pertains to selling meds, so he or she needs all info pertaining to said sale. There not selling it becouse it's fun, they obviously need the money. So they need to know how to go about it as safe as possible. AS POSSIBLE being they key word, and if righ now, your right it's all up in the air.

 

But also I was really trying to point out, and remind every one that this is not a set in stone thing. We have to rember that, you don't wan people going around thinking that what THEY say is what it is, becouse it isn't. Ya know.

[Highlander]

That's if the judge does. My point was that its not set in stone, and there is know case law as of yet. As far the police trashing your house, if you win, id bet you would have a really nice settlment

 

Yes there is.  People vs. Green established that uncompensated transfers between patients are not protected: 

 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is not disputed that the defendant, a registered qualifying patient under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., transferred a small amount of marijuana to another person who was a registered qualifying patient pursuant to MCL 333.26429(b). In Michigan v McQueen, 493 Mich 135 (2013), this Court held that, under the MMMA, “§ 4 immunity does not extend to a registered qualifying patient who transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee’s use because the transferor is not engaging in conduct related to marijuana for the purpose of relieving the transferor’s own condition or symptoms.” Id. at 156, citing MCL 333.26424(a) (footnotes omitted). Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Barry Circuit Court’s December 22, 2011 order that granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of delivery of marijuana. We REMAND this case to the circuit court for reinstatement of the charges against the defendant and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.

[pic book]

nate:  'some' people are dealers and ignoring the law is their chosen modus.

[pic book]

Some would argue that an unregistered caregiver can legally transfer to his/her patient.

Aren't they called dealers...

[Dr. Bob]

Acualty doctor bob, a Pataint can obtain meds from a non registerd CG, ( Pot Dealer ) and are totally protected. The Pot dealer isn't. But the Pataint is. It's in the law. But the hole CPS thing was / is in the law to, but it didnt stop them from kidnapping that family's little girl.

 

Also just out of curosity, and this isn't directed at you Bob. But if you guys really have this much interaction with law enforcement, you really need to rethink what you got going on in your life. Seriously.

 

Honastly, if you guys are that concerned about weed, and sellin to cops, then you should sell it to kids. Middle schoolers pay the most, high school next, then collage. I'm kidding of course. Don't sell pot to middle school kids.

 

But kids can get cards in Mi. So.....

You are correct about the patient, they can obtain from anywhere.  But the statement is about 'unregistered' caregivers.

 

Dr. Bob

[Cap'N Kush]

Yes there is. People vs. Green established that uncompensated transfers between patients are not protected:

 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is not disputed that the defendant, a registered qualifying patient under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., transferred a small amount of marijuana to another person who was a registered qualifying patient pursuant to MCL 333.26429(b). In Michigan v McQueen, 493 Mich 135 (2013), this Court held that, under the MMMA, “§ 4 immunity does not extend to a registered qualifying patient who transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee’s use because the transferor is not engaging in conduct related to marijuana for the purpose of relieving the transferor’s own condition or symptoms.” Id. at 156, citing MCL 333.26424(a) (footnotes omitted). Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Barry Circuit Court’s December 22, 2011 order that granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of delivery of marijuana. We REMAND this case to the circuit court for reinstatement of the charges against the defendant and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.

Ok, But this court case, is talking about pataints not care givers. It says nothing about a registerd CG giveing meds to a registerd Care Giver or Pataint. Now you could say it's the same thing. But it's not. The courts nit pick every word, of the law. SO this ruling has nothig to do with CG to Pataint transfers. Or CG to CG transfers.

 

This law was designed for caregivers to grow pot, and sell it, and or be compensated or what what ever you want to call it to pataints. Flat out. There is nothing in our law that says a CG can not or is not suppose to transfer meds to anotjer CG or Pataint That's insane. That's the hole purpose of the CG. To grow meds,

 

Ok let me put it like this.

 

The CG is lisence to grow cannabis. It is lawful for the CG to be compensated for the service. The CG's job is to alleviate Patait pain. The Cg transfers meds to a Pataint. Now the argument is that a CG can only transfer meds to his 5.

 

But what about a CG who has no meds, or a failed crop? What about a Pataint who has no CG and is unable to grow enough of there own meds, or grow at all.

 

I'm sorry but these rulings do not cover this issue people.

 

Paints can not transfer to paitiants that's all this covers. Not CG to CG or CG to Pataint transfers.

[Cap'N Kush]

It's the CG's duty to move as much cannabis on the street as legaly possible.

[Cap'N Kush]

Also lets look at it like this, for a CG to start growing meds some one must transfer plants or seeds to the CG. Now the law is suppose to allow protection for a Pataint to purchase in the black markit. This same protection is offerd to the CG to purchase. Especially a CG Pataint. this is prett straight forward becouse in the beginng there was no law, so plants had to come from some ware.

 

But what about a CG purchasing from another CG. If a CG can purchase on the black markit and be protected why would it be illagal to purchase legaly. It has to be assumed that legaly obtained cannabis, clones and seeds, are the goal. The intent of the law was to protect Pataints and care givers. Not make them criminals.

 

Now lets dive into the CG to Pataint transfers. I have 5 Pataints that I grow for. My five pataints purchase a ounce a month. I'm sorry but that does not cover cost. That's 1k a month at 200 dollars a ounce. That will not cover rent, electric, and medium, nutes, and travel expenses. That's not even throwing my time in there. Which I suppose some could argue isn't worth anything anyways. But I would like to think it is. I'm pretty good at what I do.

 

 

But if I transfer meds to a CG who just set up, has pataints and no meds, I can cover my cost, and yes I get compinsated for my time.

 

Some would argue that a CG is not suppose to make money off of this. But being compensated for time does not = makeing money. A non profit biz pays it's employees. This law was not set up to be a charity with volunteer work. Non profit yea, charity NO. The care givers time and money needs to be recoverd.

 

IMVHO saying a CG can only transfer to his or her 5, sounds like something the opposition would say. Not saying your Leo, but as a Care Giver and or a Pataint you don't want to spread there propaganda, it only weakens moral.

 

If the people agree, the system will be forsed to follow the people's wishs.

[I wood]

It's the CG's duty to move as much cannabis on the street as legaly possible.

That is ignorant, if you are really pre-med if fear western medicine even more now.

[Celliach]

Ok, But this court case, is talking about pataints not care givers. It says nothing about a registerd CG giveing meds to a registerd Care Giver or Pataint. Now you could say it's the same thing. But it's not. The courts nit pick every word, of the law. SO this ruling has nothig to do with CG to Pataint transfers. Or CG to CG transfers.

 

This law was designed for caregivers to grow pot, and sell it, and or be compensated or what what ever you want to call it to pataints. Flat out. There is nothing in our law that says a CG can not or is not suppose to transfer meds to anotjer CG or Pataint That's insane. That's the hole purpose of the CG. To grow meds,

 

Ok let me put it like this.

 

The CG is lisence to grow cannabis. It is lawful for the CG to be compensated for the service. The CG's job is to alleviate Patait pain. The Cg transfers meds to a Pataint. Now the argument is that a CG can only transfer meds to his 5.

 

But what about a CG who has no meds, or a failed crop? What about a Pataint who has no CG and is unable to grow enough of there own meds, or grow at all.

 

I'm sorry but these rulings do not cover this issue people.

 

Paints can not transfer to paitiants that's all this covers. Not CG to CG or CG to Pataint transfers.

 

How many caregivers aren't patients also do you suppose?

[Celliach]

Also lets look at it like this, for a CG to start growing meds some one must transfer plants or seeds to the CG. Now the law is suppose to allow protection for a Pataint to purchase in the black markit. This same protection is offerd to the CG to purchase. Especially a CG Pataint.   this is prett straight forward becouse in the beginng there was no law, so plants had to come from some ware.

 

This argument might have had some bearing in the first months the law passed.  It is totally moot now.  There is plenty of good genetics that can be obtained legally within the state of Michigan.

[Highlander]

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

 

This says nothing about a CG being compensated by another CG.

[Cap'N Kush]

I don't know where you are getting this bad information, Cap'N Kush, but you should stop spreading it here.

Show me a coart ruling that says, CG to CG transfers are illagal, or CG to Pataint transfer are illegal.

 

What you are baseing your info off of, is Bill Shuites attack agenda. Which is not LAW, but a way for the opposition to attack the law in the coarts.

 

My info is obtained, from daily research into what's going on with the law, and a rudimentary understanding of how these criminal politions and Leo operate.

 

Now Im not saying that Leo will not try to prosecute, a CG to CG or a Cg to Pataint sale. What Im saying is there is no case law of yet, that has went to the MSC on this topic. It's all been p2p transfers.

 

I'm sorry but if your saying a CG to CG is illegal then your misinformed.

 

If you want to play it safe, then only supply your pataints.

 

But please try and prove me wrong. Find the case. That has went to the MSC, and I will retract my statement. But Im pretty good at bein up on this stuff, and Im sure I would have heard about it.

[Highlander]

, for a CG to start growing meds some one must transfer plants or seeds to the CG.

 

The CG can order seeds from outside the USA.  There is nothing in the MMMA to prevent this.  The idea that CGs MUST get seeds or clones from the black market is a fallacy driven by people who just can't stand the idea that the MMMA didn't pave the way for career growers. 

[Dr. Bob]

P2P is not allowed, that has been established.  Those that do not accept that try all sorts of variations of a theme, like CG2CG, to try and get around the THEME.  Stop trying to game the system.  Stick to your up to 5 legal patients, as the law allows.  

 

I find your statement that it is a caregiver's duty to move as much medicine to the street legally to be absolutely absurd.  It ranks right up there with the offer in my local paper by a 'grower' that got ripped offering 60K in 'medical marijuana' 1/2 a pound a month for convictions for rippers.  You have to be a legal cardholder was the disclaimer.

 

Statements like 'moving as much as possible' to the street and offering marijuana for rewards is either a plant by those that wish to harm the community or by someone that is INCREDIBLY stupid and asking to be arrested.  Christ, if someone steals my car and I offer a script for 120 vicodin to whoever facilitates its return (but they have to be in 'pain'), how is that different?

 

Dr. Bob

[Celliach]

Show me a coart ruling that says, CG to CG transfers are illagal, or CG to Pataint transfer are illegal.

 

What you are baseing your info off of, is Bill Shuites attack agenda. Which is not LAW, but a way for the opposition to attack the law in the coarts.

 

My info is obtained, from daily research into what's going on with the law, and a rudimentary understanding of how these criminal politions and Leo operate.

 

Now Im not saying that Leo will not try to prosecute, a CG to CG or a Cg to Pataint sale. What Im saying is there is no case law of yet, that has went to the MSC on this topic. It's all been p2p transfers.

 

I'm sorry but if your saying a CG to CG is illegal then your misinformed.

 

If you want to play it safe, then only supply your pataints.

 

But please try and prove me wrong. Find the case. That has went to the MSC, and I will retract my statement. But Im pretty good at bein up on this stuff, and Im sure I would have heard about it.

If the CG is a patient, then the courts ruling would apply.  If it is a caregiver only, he/she is still legally able to obtain from anyone for their client.  The person transferring it to them would be in danger if they were a CG/PT.   No, there hasn't been an appeals ruling on this exact very narrow circumstance..  I far as I know, there hasn't even been an arrest under these circumstances.  As I pointed out above, almost every caregiver is a patient, so the MSC ruling would apply to them.

 

Also, I don't see why the courts would give caregivers more rights than a patient.  I'm not sure why debating the point is even important.

[Cap'N Kush]

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

 

This says nothing about a CG being compensated by another CG.

It also doesn't say that the registerd CG and Pataint have to be registerd to one another. So it's open for interpolation. Hence a grey area.

 

But like you have pointed out, there is no mention of a CG to CG sale. But how is a CG suppose to obtain plants, if it's not legal to do so? It must be prosumed that a CG to CG is legal, based on the fact, that a CG must be able to legaly obtain a plant to start the prosess, of gardening for a Pataint. This is the only way the law works.

[Dr. Bob]

Ah the infamous 'I can't reason' statement of 'show me the case where CG to CG was ruled illegal'.  I will do that right after you show me the case that says, clearly, that robbing the Chemical Bank in Clare is against the law.  Not any bank, that one.  I guess if you can't research and pull up a court case where someone was convicted for robbing THAT bank, it is ok to go make a 'withdrawal'.  

 

You need to listen to Zap.  If you don't know what you are talking about and resort to your own wishful opinions, keep them to yourself before someone here who isn't familiar with the law and wants to move some 'overages' thinks you are telling them it is somehow ok.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited October 15, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Cap'N Kush]

P2P is not allowed, that has been established. Those that do not accept that try all sorts of variations of a theme, like CG2CG, to try and get around the THEME. Stop trying to game the system. Stick to your up to 5 legal patients, as the law allows.

 

I find your statement that it is a caregiver's duty to move as much medicine to the street legally to be absolutely absurd. It ranks right up there with the offer in my local paper by a 'grower' that got ripped offering 60K in 'medical marijuana' 1/2 a pound a month for convictions for rippers. You have to be a legal cardholder was the disclaimer.

 

Statements like 'moving as much as possible' to the street and offering marijuana for rewards is either a plant by those that wish to harm the community or by someone that is INCREDIBLY stupid and asking to be arrested. Christ, if someone steals my car and I offer a script for 120 vicodin to whoever facilitates its return (but they have to be in 'pain'), how is that different?

 

Dr. Bob

I was being sarcastic bob. Don't take every thing I say so literally. Lol

[Highlander]

It also doesn't say that the registerd CG and Pataint have to be registerd to one another. So it's open for interpolation. Hence a grey area.

 

But like you have pointed out, there is no mention of a CG to CG sale. But how is a CG suppose to obtain plants, if it's not legal to do so? It must be prosumed that a CG to CG is legal, based on the fact, that a CG must be able to legaly obtain a plant to start the prosess, of gardening for a Pataint. This is the only way the law works.

 

You need to know a little something about the rules of statutory interpretation to understand this.  There is no interpolation in statutory interpretation.  The law says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say.  There is nothing implied. 

 

Please see my other post regarding how to legally obtain seeds.

[Cap'N Kush]

If the CG is a patient, then the courts ruling would apply. If it is a caregiver only, he/she is still legally able to obtain from anyone for their client. The person transferring it to them would be in danger if they were a CG/PT. No, there hasn't been an appeals ruling on this exact very narrow circumstance.. I far as I know, there hasn't even been an arrest under these circumstances. As I pointed out above, almost every caregiver is a patient, so the MSC ruling would apply to them.

 

Also, I don't see why the courts would give caregivers more rights than a patient. I'm not sure why debating the point is even important.

The law totally gives care givers more rights, In that a CG can possess plants. As far as the CG being a Pataint. I suppose it could be argued like that. But it's pretty weak.

[Highlander]

The law totally gives care givers more rights, In that a CG can possess plants. As far as the CG being a Pataint. I suppose it could be argued like that. But it's pretty weak.

 

So can a patient.

[Highlander]

Bad information in every post. This is not going to continue for long, I can feel it.

 

Both caregivers and patients may possess plants, Cap'N.

 

Sometimes, the best you can hope for is that readers will pick up on the atrocious spelling and grammar and recognize the low-quality information for what it is.

[Cap'N Kush]

You need to know a little something about the rules of statutory interpretation to understand this. There is no interpolation in statutory interpretation. The law says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. There is nothing implied.

 

Please see my other post regarding how to legally obtain seeds.

The mma offers no protections for commiting mail fraud. No they won't come after you, but there is no protections.

 

Me personally I wouldnt order any seeds from attitude, or any other seed bank. I am well established, and have connects In circles to get any seed or cut my heart desires.