Can A Card Holder Sell To Another Cardholder?

[Cap'N Kush]

Let's look at facts.

 

Fact 1: The Supreme court gave an advisory opinion on transfers:

 

(3) 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 debilitating medical condition, of a

registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the registration

process of the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH).

(4) As a result, § 4 does not offer immunity to a registered qualifying patient who

transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient, nor does it offer immunity to

a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana to anyone other than a registered

qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration

process.

 

Such an opinion affects LEO activities and how lower courts are likely to rule.

 

Fact 2: The SC could be wrong. But it doesn't matter if they are wrong. They have the final say. You could get arrested for saying that the sky is blue and the SC rules that the sky is red. As far as the legal system is concerned at that point, the sky is red.

 

And now an opinion.

 

If you get arrested for CG 2 CG transfer and take your case to the SC (assuming you have $50,000+ to burn), how do you think they will rule?

This statement is still murky, and there is no way to know how they will rule. These people are insane.

 

Really look at the wording, in what to just posted. It's confusing as all hell.

[Cap'N Kush]

You don't think it could be changed through legislation? Do you only think we can change it by getting someone arrested and dragged through the courts and have their life ruined?

No that's not what I want at all, that kind of brings tears to my eyes thinking that this is how it's being done. It's sickening. We totally need to change this through legislation.

[Celliach]

This statement is still murky, and there is no way to know how they will rule. These people are insane.

 

Really look at the wording, in what to just posted. It's confusing as all hell.

 

Can you please point out the "murky" part?

[Celliach]

No that's not what I want at all, that kind of brings tears to my eyes thinking that this is how it's being done. It's sickening. We totally need to change this through legislation.

 

Then why would you say this?

 

But with that said, if no one pushes the boundaries, that's the way it will stay.

[Highlander]

This statement is still murky, and there is no way to know how they will rule. These people are insane.

 

Really look at the wording, in what to just posted. It's confusing as all hell.

 

Maybe this will de-murkyfi it for you:

 

nor does it offer immunity to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana to anyone other than a registered

qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration process.

[Cap'N Kush]

Can you please point out the "murky" part?

The murky part, is that it's an adivisory. Meaning that they haven't ruled. There are advising becouse Bs said that's who he's going after.

[Cap'N Kush]

Then why would you say this?

Becouse that's the way it seem to be going? That's what's happening is it not?

[Celliach]

Becouse that's the way it seem to be going? That's what's happening is it not?

 

Actually no, there is plenty of action in Lansing.  Last year when the four bills were passed out of the house, they started out as eight bills with a lot of bad language that would have hurt the community more.  As it was, the four bills were basically neutralized by the time they got to the floor for a vote.  

 

Believe me, as someone who was watching the goings on, a lot was done and still being done.  Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[Cap'N Kush]

Actually no, there is plenty of action in Lansing. Last year when the four bills were passed out of the house, they started out as eight bills with a lot of bad language that would have hurt the community more. As it was, the four bills were basically neutralized by the time they got to the floor for a vote.

 

Believe me, as someone who was watching the goings on, a lot was done and still being done. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I stay up on what's going. I know there trying to hash this same debate were haveing right now out in the legislation. I hope something good comes of it.

[Cap'N Kush]

Cap'N, where are you getting this stuff? Are you just making it up as you go along?

Getting what?

[bobandtorey]

No that's not what I want at all, that kind of brings tears to my eyes thinking that this is how it's being done. It's sickening. We totally need to change this through legislation.

We already have that part covered Sec 4 you can't be arrested how much plainer does it have to be ?

[Natesilver]

Hmmm... We know unregistered caregiver to patient is covered under section 8, but I'm not so sure about cg2cg. Can you provide more in depth rationale cap'n?

 

Edit: ok I see zap temporarily banned you, when you are allowed to post again perhaps you can expand upon your position more eloquently

Edited October 15, 2013 by Natesilver

[Wild Bill]

Why not call your county prosecutor and see how they would handle it?

 

Or, better yet make your transfer in the local sheriff's office. That way you'll be safe from robbery.

 

They're there to serve and protect you know!

[Highlander]

Why not call your county prosecutor and see how they would handle it?

 

Or, better yet make your transfer in the local sheriff's office. That way you'll be safe from robbery.

 

They're there to serve and protect you know!

 

Yeah - just print out a copy of this thread and you should be all set. 

[Dr. Bob]

Well it sounds like it is over, folks have a few min to review things and get a better understanding.  

 

There are far too many people that try to push their own agenda of what they think should be in the law, but we need to stay with what IS in the law and figure out ways to work with it.

 

Cell gave a good example.  Get a caregiver, retain your plants.  The caregiver can then transfer you genetics, teach you to grow them, and when you are ready you can cut loose and repeat the process.  That is a legal way to get genetics without mail order seeds or illegal clones from Craig's list.  Learn to grow, pay a little homage to those that are already and get your plants and knowledge from them.  

 

Notice there are no discussions of variations on a resolved issue (Caregiver to registered patient only, or self grow) trying to pull a fast one on the act and justify your little dispensary.  Dave tried that Cg2Cg stuff in Grand Rapids- didn't work and he plead.  Others will continue to try, learn from their experience as they are shot down one by one.

 

Look at the framework of the law from what CAN I do, not what MAYBE I can do, plan your actions accordingly.  Complain about having to cover your dog pen, or rejoice in the fact that we know know a covered dog pen is legal.  Choice is yours.  But don't come on here and say you know a dog pen has to be covered, but no where does it say I have to cover my chicken coup so that is ok.  

 

Dr. Bob

[trichcycler]

let's not forget one fact; Medical Marijuana has increased the amount of marijuana driving citations/arrests, even if it did decrease drunk driving, so what ?

[glassgrl]

I found this article on the internet this evening, thought you all might be interested in it.    http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/2013/01/30/court-of-appeals-mmma-protects-uncompensated-patient-to-patient-transfers/

[GregS]

Ty glassgirl. The case was heard months ago. It has since been revised by the Supreme Court in McQueen and ruled that sales are permitted as a part of transfer.

[Celliach]

The Supreme Court basically overturned this decision by ruling that a CG can only legally transfer to his five registered PTs and still have Section 4 protections.

[jimmyjjohn]

I think he said deaths not arrest? I'm not sure for michigan but their are studies out their that show states that have mm have dropped their road fatalities by as much as 10%.

[jimmyjjohn]

PT to PT is illegal according to the Michigan Supreme Court.

[Kingdiamond]

PT to PT is illegal according to the Michigan Supreme Court.

No its not that was overturned better go back and look again the recent ruling limits caregivers and patients from only getting their medicine from caregivers connected to them via the medical marijuana registry .

[Beans]

No its not that was overturned better go back and look again the recent ruling limits caregivers and patients from only getting their medicine from caregivers connected to them via the medical marijuana registry .

He said PT to PT is "illegal"

[t-pain]

supreme court said a patient can aquire from anyone.

 

pt 2 pt maybe covered by section8 but we dont know.

[Restorium2]

supreme court said a patient can aquire from anyone.

 

pt 2 pt maybe covered by section8 but we dont know.

Actually, some pt to pt transfers would have to be covered by section 8. No reason to think not. Simply being a patient does stop you from being in the position of a caregiver in a section 8 defense. Being in a position to have legal meds, like a patient is, leads one to believe there are more potential sucessful section 8 defense between patients then any other cross section of the people in the state.

 

You always have to think about this though; Entry level legal fees for a section 8 are recently quoted at $6000 retainer at first contact with an attorney.