Do You Know What Your Registered Patients Condition Is?

[Highlander]

The basis to assert the purpose for use is the physician's statement. Your other points are taken, with the exception of the red herring arguments.

 

OK well let's just go with the truism that reasonable minds can disagree.  And of course, unreasonable minds can disagree.  And the current ruling, whether reasonable or not, is what it is.    But the COA has spoken.  So just like I don't think cannabis should be illegal in the first place, I don't think patients and CGs should be burdened with proving compliance if they are otherwise within limits and there is no prima facia evidence of wrongdoing.  But then realty hits the fan, and we must realize and accept that the law now stands that a CG needs to be involved/responsible at a level where he needs to be able to prove that he is treating his patients' conditions.   It is what it is.

 

Myself, I can see some positive here...that the COA told me that if I'm within my numbers and tuned in to my patient's needs, than I'm good.  For people trying to comply with the law, it is always better to have a specific law that restricts rather than an ambiguous law that we hope to read as wide-open.  I do better with specific rules and order...makes it harder to the antis to oppose me.  The cowboys among us would probably rather prefer a loosey-goosey law that they hope to massage and reinterpret. 

 

You might recall that in the early days, some people wanted to look at this:

 

4(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.

 

and conclude that the Section 4 "an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act" meant that the Section 8 style "interrupted supply" could be imported into section 4.  And then some smart people pointed out that if the legal amounts under Section 4 were not actually fixed, the LEO/PAs might argue that a pt or CG would still need to justify possession of quantities under the Section 4 limits.  That's where we ended up.  So we have had silly arguments on both sides of this issue.

 

I just don't see this ruling as a battle worth spending much or our resources on.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Highlander

[GregS]

OK well let's just go with the truism that reasonable minds can disagree.  And of course, unreasonable minds can disagree.  And the current ruling, whether reasonable or not, is what it is.    But the COA has spoken.  So just like I don't think cannabis should be illegal in the first place, I don't think patients and CGs should be burdened with proving compliance if they are otherwise within limits and there is no prima facia evidence of wrongdoing.  But then realty hits the fan, and we must realize and accept that the law now stands that a CG needs to be involved/responsible at a level where he needs to be able to prove that he is treating his patients' conditions.   It is what it is.

You're right. We disagree. I believe, as stated in the law, that the physician's statement is required to establish that medical need exists. It is not incumbent on caregivers to answer for that anywhere but in this fantasy opinion. There is certainly no requirement in the law. Further, a patient who withholds information or misrepresents their cannabis use to their caregiver is committing fraud.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

By who's definition?  Yours or is it written in the law?

Written law.  Have you read the MMMA?

[Guanotea1]

Does this not seem like a silly discussion to anyone else?

 

Listen, don't you ever let the cops in to poke around. Warrant? Warrant? Warrant?

 

Don't ever talk to the cops, silence and... Lawyer? Lawyer? Lawyer!

 

So... keep your mouth shut, smells contained, don't let the police in, paperwork up to date with copies made, and remember to keep that lawyer on speed dial. What's really changed? This is just another way to attack naive people, who think that their license will actually be respected like any other licensed profession in the Mitten. As for this ruling making us more "legit", IMO that will happen until we start filling up legislators pockets with money. Until then the drug war continues on it's profitable-for-some arc.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Guanotea1

[Highlander]

You're right. We disagree. I believe, as stated in the law, that the physician's statement is required to establish that medical need exists. It is not incumbent on caregivers to answer for that anywhere but in this fantasy opinion. There is certainly no requirement in the law. Further, a patient who withholds information or misrepresents their cannabis use to their caregiver is committing fraud.

 

I can accept that, but then what does this mean?

 

(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.

 

We know that laws don't have any "extra" words in them.  So the underlined words mean something.  What does this phrase mean?  What is a good example for an action that  CG might make that is contrary to the underlined (if not what I think it means)?

[Norby]

Written law.  Have you read the MMMA?

Yes, but I didn't memorize it.  Where does it specifically say that a caregivers requirements are to know the doctor and qualifying patients condition?  Could you copy and paste it or just cite the line #'s?

Edited November 21, 2013 by Norby

[GregS]

I mentioned earlier, I think a forum thread here with information on strains for caregivers based on conditions would be very helpful.  I am not experienced in that, we need to bring the knowledge base of those that are to bear to help with those issues.

 

Dr. Bob

Let me get this right. You hold yourself out there to certify patients but know nothing about specifics of the drug you are recommending, making bank, and want to lay the responsibility and legal risk at caregivers' feet?

 

You are no patient. You are no caregiver. You are a fraud.

Edited November 22, 2013 by GregS

[Highlander]

Does this not seem like a silly discussion to anyone else?

 

Listen, don't you ever let the cops in to poke around. Warrant? Warrant? Warrant?

 

Don't ever talk to the cops, silence and... Lawyer? Lawyer? Lawyer!

 

So... keep your mouth shut, smells contained, don't let the police in, paperwork up to date with copies made, and remember to keep that lawyer on speed dial. What's really changed? This is just another way to attack naive people, who think that their license will actually be respected like any other licensed profession in the Mitten. As for this ruling making us more "legit", IMO that will happen until we start filling up legislators pockets with money. Until then the drug war continues on it's profitable-for-some arc.

 

Yes I think it is silly.  It is a lot like saying "I can't drive 55" and then concluding that such speed limit, however silly, doesn't apply to me.  When in reality, it is pretty easy to comply with.  You keep the needle under 55.  You keep the appropriate records you need to defend yourself.  Pretty easy really.  This isn't the McQueen decision.  This is just a minor speed bump.  So you slow down and account for it and go about your business like you did before and fight a more important battle.

[Highlander]

As i see it now Caregivers will have no know Patients Medical reason's for using Cannabis and Patients Phone # and Addresses By heart because you won't get a note book to look at when you'll up on the stand 

 

Was this defendant expected to have memorized this information?  I didn't get that out of the ruling. 

[Guanotea1]

Highlander

I get that it applies to me.

 

It just doesn't need to change the way I actually ACT. I guess for some people, it would, because they do not know that they need to ALWAYS shut up and ask for a warrant / lawyer. It would have made LEO's job a lot harder if this guy had done that - the fact is it would have saved him a lot of unnecessary trouble.

 

But I get what you are saying, if you don't keep your patients med records handy (or have their medical conditions memorized) and you don't have a clue as to how much they use and of what and why- you should slow down and take 30 minutes to get it all organized for a day of reckoning.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Guanotea1

[Guanotea1]

And a good lawyer should know about this and should be drilling you before you ever hit the stand. I'd sure hope so!

Edited November 21, 2013 by Guanotea1

[Highlander]

Let's look at this from another perspective...importing the definition of "medical use" into the definition of "primary caregiver."

 

"Primary caregiver" or "caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition 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.

 

then back to statutory interpretation 101...that every word in  statute means something. 

 

So there is necessarily a difference between a person who "agreed to assist with a patient's acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition"

 

vs a person who  "agreed to assist with a patient's acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia."

 

A big, huge difference.

 

So as a CG you agree to assist a patient with MMJ for a specific purpose.  You aren't just agreeing to help them get MJ.  CGs need to ask themselves what it means to agree to assist a patient to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition

Edited November 21, 2013 by Highlander

[GregS]

Let's look at this from another perspective...importing the definition of "medical use" into the definition of "primary caregiver."

 

"Primary caregiver" or "caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition 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.

 

then back to statutory interpretation 101...that every word in  statute means something. 

 

So there is necessarily a difference between a person who "agreed to assist with a patient's acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition"

 

vs a person who agreed to agreed to assist with a patient's acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia."

 

So as a CG you agree to assist a patient with MMJ for a specific purpose.  You aren't just agreeing to help them get MJ.

Those purposes are acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition. They could not be more clearly defined, and do not include record keeping or any kind of surveillance, much less to be required to testify to a patient's needs. That is entirely the point, and the court got it wrong. And yes, we can assist with providing paraphernalia.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Guanotea1]

Highlander,

 

Gotcha.

Thanks that does make it easy to understand!

 

GregS,

I see what you mean, too. That was my first thought.

I think this guy really screwed himself by agreeing to talk - they were sneaky muffin-faces on this one - they managed to "prove" that he was not a "real" caregiver using only his own testimony.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Guanotea1

[GregS]

Written law.  Have you read the MMMA?

Pleeze tell us where in the law your position is supported. Pretty pleeze? We've read it and can't find it.

Edited November 22, 2013 by GregS

[Guanotea1]

So my point is, sure, you can go the Highlander Route and be extra safe with the extra paperwork. I don't mind, PERSONALLY, because I do that already anyway.

 

But, as GregS alluded to, wasn't it the prosecutors burden here to prove that, despite being within the other section 4 guidelines, he was not a "real" caregiver? They sort of needed to prove his ill-intent to bust him? Under normal circumstances that should be very hard to do - you'd be standing there completely mute.

 

He just made it easy for them to prove that he was not a "real" caregiver, and it would have been advantageous to simply just STFU. 

 

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, I would just hire one. But I do feel as though I'm missing something...

Edited November 21, 2013 by Guanotea1

[Highlander]

Those purposes are acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition. They could not be more clearly defined, and do not include record keeping or any kind of surveillance, much less to be required to testify to a patient's needs. That is entirely the point, and the court got it wrong. And yes, we can assist with providing paraphernalia.

 

I'm not sure we are on the same page.  The question was, what is the difference between:

 

1.  Assisting a patient with acquisition of MJ

 

and

 

2.  Assisting a patient with acquisition of MJ for the purpose of alleviating his condition.

 

You are protected for #2.  No protection for #1.

 

The specificity of a CG's duty is to provide/grow  etc. for the purpose of alleviating the patient's condition.  The purpose is part of the requirement.  If the author of the law didn't intend for a CG to be involved for the purpose of alleviating the patient's condition, then the law would have been written as #1 above, rather than #2.  There is a specific purpose to being a CG, and you can't just separate that out of the discussion.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Highlander

[Norby]

Yes I think it is silly.  It is a lot like saying "I can't drive 55" and then concluding that such speed limit, however silly, doesn't apply to me.  When in reality, it is pretty easy to comply with.  You keep the needle under 55.  You keep the appropriate records you need to defend yourself.  Pretty easy really.  This isn't the McQueen decision.  This is just a minor speed bump.  So you slow down and account for it and go about your business like you did before and fight a more important battle.

That's a pretty bad analogy.

[GregS]

I'm not sure we are on the same page.  The question was, what is the difference between:

 

1.  Assisting a patient with acquisition of MJ

 

and

 

2.  Assisting a patient with acquisition of MJ for the purpose of alleviating his condition.

 

You are protected for #2.  No protection for #1.

 

The specificity of a CG's duty is to provide/grow  etc. for the purpose of alleviating the patient's condition.  The purpose is part of the requirement.

Guess I didn't put on the brakes fast enough.

 

I don't know that you can't be a little more clear? The specifics have been laid out. Specifics are different from purpose, but there are specific purposes.

 

Does anyone remember Make a Wish? It was an endless source of amusement and learning.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Highlander]

Guess I didn't put on the brakes fast enough.

 

I don't know that you can't be a little more clear? The specifics have been laid out. Specifics are different from purpose, although there are specific purposes.

 

Does anyone remember Make a Wish?

 

I'm not sure what you mean.  My point is that the law says that a CG's caregiving is for the purpose of alleviating a patient's condition.  It doesn't say that the purpose is simply to supply cannabis.  There's a difference.  I know what that means to me in light of this ruling but I don't know what that means to you.

[Guanotea1]

So basically, in order to qualify for section 4 protection at all, you have to be able to prove you are #2?

 

2.  Assisting a patient with acquisition of MJ for the purpose of alleviating his condition.

[Norby]

I'm not sure what you mean.  My point is that the law says that a CG's caregiving is for the purpose of alleviating a patient's condition.  It doesn't say that the purpose is simply to supply cannabis.  There's a difference.  I know what that means to me in light of this ruling but I don't know what that means to you.

Yes, but why can't supplying cannabis also fit alleviating a patients condition.  It should be the bare bones minimum requirement.  If the patient wants to do it themselves except the growing why can't they?  Isn't this supposed to help patients?  What if they don't want you to know they have aids? 

 

I don't want anyone knowing I get the defecates and I get depressed and anxious because of IBS.  Personal stuff I'd rather discuss with my doctor than my supplier.  Luckily I can grow my own and no one has to know.  Silly, maybe but I am what I am. Think of it like everyone else who doesn't fit into your square has rights too.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Norby

[GregS]

We were just discussing, in another thread about how strains affect different people differently.  How is one supposed to work w/ that?  Isn't there lists of what supposedly works with what?  If not I'm never going to be able to figure it out any better than a patient or doctor printing out the same page and going thru the list.

Those lists are at your fingertips. The interwebs are loaded with information.

[GregS]

So basically, in order to qualify for section 4 protection at all, you have to be able to prove you are #2?

 

2.  Assisting a patient with acquisition of MJ for the purpose of alleviating his condition.

Yes, if a patient has represented to you that they have established medical need via a bona fide physician statement. You are not required to know or speak to that need in court, but only know that the physician has stated that need exists. Registry cards are de facto proof of that, despite this opinion.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Norby]

No.  I'm suggesting that you get your medical file out and make some notes...that you tried Sativa A on X-date and that it had X effect that alleviated your pain.  And for heavens sake, don't EVER tell a judge that you use MMJ to treat depression.  Get in the mindset that your involvement with MJ is for the purpose of alleviating your qualifying condition.  And document that.

So your saying that I should write notes but not real ones since depression and anxiety, although they are because of my qualifying condition shouldn't be mentioned because I can't treat other symptoms of my qualifying condition?  Real easy, PHEW thought this would be hard:)

I can see another reason people wouldn't want to keep notes.