Jump to content

Can A Patient Have More Than One Caregiver?


cholio
 Share

Recommended Posts

The simple answer is, no.  The state allows you to name one person as caregiver on your paperwork.

 

Some have tried to put together networks of caregivers in order to to try to stretch the legal interpretation.  Here's one for instance: say that you are person A and you have named person B as your caregiver.  Person B could name person C as his caregiver and person C could in turn name person D as his caregiver.  In this setup, your caregiver B could grow you meds or could acquire directly from C or indirectly from D through C.

 

Good luck explaining it to the judge should the need arise.  Technically when acquiring medicine, it is supposed to be to treat your condition, not really to treat a condition in another person.  The networks seem like they should work but then again, the judge might see it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

drive legal, live legal, and follow the rules clearly given in our

Act,  and sprinkle some common sense on every aspect of life

 and you'll most likely never see law enforcement, like the majority of caregivers/patients registered currently.

If nobody knows, then nobody knows.  Choose your patients wisely, run background checks

and wait until the state verifies their registration before you even meet a stranger. Conduct your interviews

thoroughly like your life depends on it.

 

welcome to the registry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple answer is, no.  The state allows you to name one person as caregiver on your paperwork.

 

Some have tried to put together networks of caregivers in order to to try to stretch the legal interpretation.  Here's one for instance: say that you are person A and you have named person B as your caregiver.  Person B could name person C as his caregiver and person C could in turn name person D as his caregiver.  In this setup, your caregiver B could grow you meds or could acquire directly from C or indirectly from D through C.

 

Good luck explaining it to the judge should the need arise.  Technically when acquiring medicine, it is supposed to be to treat your condition, not really to treat a condition in another person.  The networks seem like they should work but then again, the judge might see it differently.

I totaly dont agree with you on that one, Im a pt/c.g and I have a c.g, and he has 5 pts and one of them is his/her c.g, now when some one in that legal chain has problems aquiring the mm they need to get thru the month, they have more options than only their c.g or their own g.r!

 

Now no one else in the chain has 5 pt's like my c.g, but he only grows maybe half of what he/she is legaly allowed under the law, and when he gets mm from his c.g it is legal, and once he has it,  it is legal for him to take care of his pt's with that same mm!

 

No one grows together, no one goes into any one elses grow rooms, so tell me how is this ilegal?  we dont have a farm market, we dont deal or supply anyone out of our legal pt's registered thru the state, so how can it be wrong?

 

Phaq the judge, I dont even think I would need an attny to challenge any of the legal stuff going on between smart people who dont use despenses or supply out of their legaly registered pts or c.g's thru the state!

 

answer to your question is a pt can only have 1 c.g, a c.g can only have 5 pt's, but a cg/pt can have a c.g/pt and a pt/c.g!

 

a tounge twister but some one explain to me how that is not legal, and if you are gonna try show me court transcripts or in the law that says different!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totaly dont agree with you on that one, Im a pt/c.g and I have a c.g, and he has 5 pts and one of them is his/her c.g, now when some one in that legal chain has problems aquiring the mm they need to get thru the month, they have more options than only their c.g or their own g.r!

 

Now no one else in the chain has 5 pt's like my c.g, but he only grows maybe half of what he/she is legaly allowed under the law, and when he gets mm from his c.g it is legal, and once he has it,  it is legal for him to take care of his pt's with that same mm!

 

No one grows together, no one goes into any one elses grow rooms, so tell me how is this ilegal?  we dont have a farm market, we dont deal or supply anyone out of our legal pt's registered thru the state, so how can it be wrong?

 

Phaq the judge, I dont even think I would need an attny to challenge any of the legal stuff going on between smart people who dont use despenses or supply out of their legaly registered pts or c.g's thru the state!

 

answer to your question is a pt can only have 1 c.g, a c.g can only have 5 pt's, but a cg/pt can have a c.g/pt and a pt/c.g!

 

a tounge twister but some one explain to me how that is not legal, and if you are gonna try show me court transcripts or in the law that says different!

 

Peace

 

For the same reason that patient to patient was ruled illegal by the court, caregiver to caregiver is illegal, imo. 

 

They ridiculously ruled that the transaction must be done to alleviate the medical condition of the participants in the transaction.  This is easy for the receiver of the cannabis but how does the one delivering the cannabis have his qualifying medical condition alleviated by the transaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the same reason that patient to patient was ruled illegal by the court, caregiver to caregiver is illegal, imo. 

 

They ridiculously ruled that the transaction must be done to alleviate the medical condition of the participants in the transaction.  This is easy for the receiver of the cannabis but how does the one delivering the cannabis have his qualifying medical condition alleviated by the transaction?

That is the most salient point in McQueen. It is not allowed unless the transferror is a caregiver designated as that patient as such. Sec. 4(d)(2) has always been a part of the law and the court decided rightly.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the same reason that patient to patient was ruled illegal by the court, caregiver to caregiver is illegal, imo. 

 

They ridiculously ruled that the transaction must be done to alleviate the medical condition of the participants in the transaction.  This is easy for the receiver of the cannabis but how does the one delivering the cannabis have his qualifying medical condition alleviated by the transaction?

 

Well, basic grammar tells us this.  So the SC didn't really have a choice with this.  The law states:

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

It is pretty simple.  If you are a patient, and you have MJ, then whatever you do with that MJ must be for the purpose of alleviating your debilitating condition.  The law doesn't say "some other patient's debilitating condition."   If the law read, The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating A qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act, then you'd have a legitimate complaint. 

 

So no need to hate on the courts for reading the law as it was written.  Your beef is with the author - not the courts

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I totally disagree. d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver: Then there are two requirements THE pt must have a card AND must not have more than 2.5 oz. end of story unless ruled by a court as to medical use ie reselling to non qualifying patient. I see nothing ambiguous. 1 + 1 = presumed medical use. Yea I know I lose but truth will win or we just go full legalize. Wonder if the threat of full legalization might open some minds.

Well, basic grammar tells us this.  So the SC didn't really have a choice with this.  The law states:

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

It is pretty simple.  If you are a patient, and you have MJ, then whatever you do with that MJ must be for the purpose of alleviating your debilitating condition.  The law doesn't say "some other patient's debilitating condition."   If the law read, The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating A qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act, then you'd have a legitimate complaint. 

 

So no need to hate on the courts for reading the law as it was written.  Your beef is with the author - not the courts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree. d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver: Then there are two requirements THE pt must have a card AND must not have more than 2.5 oz. end of story unless ruled by a court as to medical use ie reselling to non qualifying patient. I see nothing ambiguous. 1 + 1 = presumed medical use. Yea I know I lose but truth will win or we just go full legalize. Wonder if the threat of full legalization might open some minds.

 

I don't know what your are disagreeing with.  The act is pretty clear that Section 4 protections won't apply if   "...evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition..."  But the act does not address how such evidence is evaluated, by whom and in what manner.  There is not a requirement in the act that "unless ruled by a court as to medical use ie reselling to non qualifying patient..."  Therein lies the problem...the act doesn't specify how or by whom such evidence is evaluated - let alone requiring that a court make the determination.  You might see a recent post I made on this same subject....that it is unfortunate that the Michigan Supreme Court appears to have delegated such evaluation of evidence to law enforcement officers (who will arrest on the spot based on suspicion at best and a whim at worst) as opposed to the courts (who would need to meet a probable cause standard to issue an arrest warrant).  This issue would have been resolved before it started if the authors of the act had the foresight to account for this issue and define how evidence of non-compliance would be addressed.  Instead the act left this open-ended, and the courts filled in the blanks in a way this is detrimental to patients and caregivers.It's a shame, really, but it is where were are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any questions asked of the authors as to the intent of their language on this matter. Unfortunately the Supreme Court already made a decision, so we are stuck with it. If there had been any benefit to such an inquiry, the attorney in the McQueen case should have been armed with it. Instead, when Chief Justice Young shut her down on that line of reasoning she had so response and was unable to further her argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the authors intended to protect patients from arrest for using marijuana as a medicine. its section 2 i think.

Yes that was the general intent, but surely the authors didn't intend for any person to be protected for any involvement with MMJ, as they wrote-in exceptions to immunity and protections such as what we are discussing here. So they purposefully wrote this law with narrow protections. And of course there is a difference between using marihuana as medicine and distributing marijuana to others to be used as medicine. It would be nice if we had a free-for-all here in Michigan that would allow any cardholder to transfer (sell) to any other cardholder. But, unfortunately, we don't have that. ( We got close in People vs Green). Look no further than the MMJ law in Rhode Island. The MMP authored the Rhode Island law and, later, the Michigan law, using the Rhode Island law as a template.

 

By the time we were voting on the MMJ law in Michigan, the law in Rhode Island already passed and was amended to allow non-compensated transfers between patients. One has to believe that the authors of the MI law (MPP) were aware of the goings-on in Rhode Island and still chose to present the ballot initiative in Michigan with limited protections, such as excluding p2p transfers. One would think that if the MMP had intended for the Michigan law to allow patient-to-patient transfers, they would have included language in the Michigan law to mirror what already existed in Rhode Island. But they didn't.

 

The PI #1 of 2008 was a great launching point for us, but it isn't the final end-goal. It just gives us an avenue to find some protection and look to the future to improve things. MMP paved the road. It is now up to us to maintain and improve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree. d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver: Then there are two requirements THE pt must have a card AND must not have more than 2.5 oz. end of story unless ruled by a court as to medical use ie reselling to non qualifying patient. I see nothing ambiguous. 1 + 1 = presumed medical use. Yea I know I lose but truth will win or we just go full legalize. Wonder if the threat of full legalization might open some minds.

IF you are a patient and

IF a physician has opined in a bona fide dr./patient relationship that you might benefit from the use of cannabis and

IF that recommendation is a matter of record and

IF you appoint a person who is qualified as a caregiver to assist you in the medical use of cannabis to treat your condition, without being registered as your caregiver and

IF you, yourself, are or are not registered and

IF you and said caregiver possess an amount of cannabis necessary to provide an uninterrupted supply and

IF you understand that you are not protected from arrest and prosecution, but from conviction, but only 

IF all of the elements of sec. 8 are proved in a pre trial hearing based on your motion to dismiss and

IF the judge allows all pertinent evidence and

IF you are willing to pony up for a lawyer to counsel and represent you and

IF you are aware that the time and energy to defend this in court is massive and aggravating and

IF you understand that court can be a crapshoot,

THEN you might consider multiple caregivers.

 

By all means. Knock yourself out.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can be some ones c.g and not grow at all, I could go to an ilegal despense to procure my pt's meds! :bong2:

 

wait let me rephrase that lol!

 

oh shoot I forgot what I was going to type and dont feel like deleting it! maybe it will come to me! :bong7bp:  :kfu:

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...