Bay City Medical Marijuana Compassion Club Operators Accept Plea Deals

[Highlander]

for the same reason you think you can transfer meds to your caregiver.

 

"the purpose of that transfer is my eventual use of future meds to alleviate my condition."

 

by transferring to another patient, i'm establishing a relationship wherein we can share different strains with each other, and maybe find a strain that works best for me. this cannot happen if i merely purchase meds from a cg , since i do not have unlimited funds. but if patients are allowed to trade meds, we can exchange meds that do not work for meds that work better for our individual qualifying conditions.

 

let me ask a different question, as it seems we are at an impasse.

do you think the original drafters expected p2p to not be allowed?

and

do you think the voters wanted patients to be criminals for transferring medicine between other patients?

or

do you think the voters intended for patients to sign up with 100 different caregivers just to try each of the 5-10 strains they might each have to find the right one?

 

 

i'm not part of any dispensary, i've never done a transfer with anyone. i'm not trying to change the act.

the michigan supreme court says they have to use common definitions of words in the act which are not defined, and then the same court uses the twisted drug-law definition for the word posess? do you think thats confusing?

 

Well, if you read back nearly five years ago, you might find posts where I suggested that if patients do decide to transfer, they should at least try to frame the transfer in such a way as to have some medical benefit for themselves.  An example I used was a trade, where both parties made it clear that the ONLY way to get each others meds was to trade.  As in "I have some extra sativa and I know you need it and the only way I'll give it to you is if you give me some of your indica."  That was about as far out on the limb as I'd be willing to go on that.  I think that if your much expanded view of this topic was what the authors of the law intended, then they wouldn't have used such specific and limiting wording of the "purpose of the [transfer] needs to be to alleviate your condition."  One rule of statutory interpretation is that if you have to create such a, shall we say "creative" argument, then that isn't what the law intended.

 

To answer your questions:  No, I don't think that the authors of the law intended p2p transfers...for a few reasons.  One good reason is that they (MPP) didn't ever come out in support of p2p.  Another good reason is that the MPP wrote a nearly identical law that was passed in Rhode Island in 2006.  This same debate ensued in RI before the MPP wrote our law, and eventually the RI law was amended to allow for uncompensated transfers.  So it is hard for me to believe that MPP intended for p2p transfers Michigan.

 

Do I think that the voters wanted patients to be criminals for passing MJ around?  No, I don't.  And for the most part I think that the average person has no issue with this....depending what you mean by p2p transfers.  If you're  talking about two sick people trading or sharing meds, then I don't think that the average voter gave it a second thought.  But when the idea of p2p transfer is used to justify a distribution network, I think the average voter would not agree.

 

Do I think the voters intended for patients to sign up with 100 different caregivers just to try each of the 5-10 strains they might each have to find the right one?  I don't think that the average voter, or even the average MMJ user would think that a patient would need to try 500 to 1,000 strains to find the right one.  So to answer your question, "no"  But if in your scenario, the average CG has 5-10 strains, then how many strains would the average patient have? Two?  So using your scenario, this patient who needed to try 500-1,000 strains would need to have transfers with 250 to 500 or more other patients in order to find his best strain.  Where are you going to find 250+ patients to trade meds with?  So I'm not sure how p2p transfers make access so much easier as some people seem to say.

 

the michigan supreme court says they have to use common definitions of words in the act which are not defined, and then the same court uses the twisted drug-law definition for the word posess? do you think thats confusing? 

 

I don't know what case you are talking about with the "possess" matter but I do agree that the COAs and the SC have used some warped reasoning in parts of some rulings.  I thought it was ridiculous that the COA ruled that "transfer" didn't include "sale," as it related to transfers in the McQueen case.  I wrote about that extensively on this site.   But I was surprised that they didn't go after the "transfer must be for the purpose of alleviating your condition." problem.  I wrote about that too.  But as far as confusing, the act itself is confusing on purpose.  A good example is that it takes an common term "primary caregiver" and redefines it.  So the average voter was lead to believe that the person growing MJ would be a patient's primary caregiver in the general sense...that being the person who more or less handles the medical affairs of another, typically a family member.  So we can't really use confusion as a reason to support what we MMJ people want.

[+Malamute]

do you think the original drafters expected p2p to not be allowed?

and

do you think the voters wanted patients to be criminals for transferring medicine between other patients?

or

do you think the voters intended for patients to sign up with 100 different caregivers just to try each of the 5-10 strains they might each have to find the right one?

 

 

 

the michigan supreme court says they have to use common definitions of words in the act which are not defined, and then the same court uses the twisted drug-law definition for the word posess? do you think thats confusing?

 

 1) the original drafters absolutely 100% did not intend for pt/pt transfers.  As i used to say, that did not necessarily mean that by some accident that some language in the Act may have allowed such a thing as pt/pt transfers.  There are so many laws written with unintended actions and consequences that it may have happened here. Fact is, it did not.  Drafters didnt intend pt/pt, the courts agreed with them.

 

2) The voters had no clue what the law even said. They generally believed certain patients under certain circumstances should be able to use medical marihuana within the guidelines of the law/initiative.

 

3) Obvious exxageration and i do not know of any patient that has ever signed up 100 caregivers.  As far as voters intent?  They expected people to operate within the guidelines of the law.

 

sub 4) Is this a complaint over which dictionary they use?  Laws naturally have legalese. Rules of construction. And accepted norms when it comes to reading a law. 

[+Malamute]

Let me add, there is a legal way for a patient to transfer to a patient.  Oneof them must become a caregiver for the other. Ta' daa'!

 

That is how the law is setup.  The "voters" intended people to stay within the guidelines of the Act. The Act only allows patients to transfer amongst each other if they are legally able to register with the other patient.(disregarding Sec8). The rules the "people" put down was that a pt cannot transfer to another patient unless registered to the patient, do not have a disqualifying felony etc. 

 

 So by this means, the only patients that cannot transfer to another patient(registered to them) is if they have a disqualifying felony. The public said they do not want drug felons taking advantage of this law.

[bobandtorey]

i am well aware of the supreme court ruling on p2p is not protected under sec4, yes.

i am merely articulating the complaints, concerns and confusions people have with the ruling and with the act.

 

i appreciate you trying to help me wrap my head around it.

 

my problem is that the same supreme court has said you cannot add or make negatory any part of the act in reading it.

so if p2p is not covered by section 4, how can a patient transfer marijuana?

this ruling has made patient transfers negatory.

 

the supreme court is at odds with itself, not me.

Negatory

 

Yes and no are two words for expressing the affirmative and the negative respectively in modern English.

[bobandtorey]

Let me add, there is a legal way for a patient to transfer to a patient.  Oneof them must become a caregiver for the other. Ta' daa'!

 

That is how the law is setup.  The "voters" intended people to stay within the guidelines of the Act. The Act only allows patients to transfer amongst each other if they are legally able to register with the other patient.(disregarding Sec8). The rules the "people" put down was that a pt cannot transfer to another patient unless registered to the patient, do not have a disqualifying felony etc. 

 

 So by this means, the only patients that cannot transfer to another patient(registered to them) is if they have a disqualifying felony. The public said they do not want drug felons taking advantage of this law.

Thanks i can see  some of your point but thinking someone can know what the Voters intended maybe a stretch  imo

[Restorium2]

Not exactly mind reading Bob. You have to realize that your intent as a voter is expressed when you vote for a rep or judge too. The reps and judges are making our law as the voters that voted them in wanted, or so they can claim. That's how it works. Be careful how you vote, because you, the voter, are in control in a very precarious way.

[imiubu]

I want to add:

I did 'like' your post resto;

as voting is imparitive and I agree with you 100%

Knowing what and who we are voting for is also imparitive

and I feel some are disinformed, in fact many may be.

Assuming you know the intent of all voters is erroneous also.

Just within my circle of friends there are many different

scenerios they had in mind when voting for prop 1. On forums

just like this one... there are several differences of how people

understood the proposition... just saying... it has been said

that the law was written to be confusing to the gp, this I can agree with.

 

Be a caregiver, have a caregiver, was that the mantra I heard at one point?

Create a daisy chain.

[bobandtorey]

Thanks for keeping the dream alive 

 

all across the country, new voter suppression laws are popping up seemingly every day. These laws are stupid and dangerous because they take aim at America's most vulnerable voters - people of

 

color, the poor, the elderly, students and the disabled. It's just wrong.

[bobandtorey]

I want to add:

I did 'like' your post resto;

as voting is imparitive and I agree with you 100%

Knowing what and who we are voting for is also imparitive

and I feel some are disinformed, in fact many may be.

Assuming you know the intent of all voters is erroneous also.

Just within my circle of friends there are many different

scenerios they had in mind when voting for prop 1. On forums

just like this one... there are several differences of how people

understood the proposition... just saying... it has been said

that the law was written to be confusing to the gp, this I can agree with.

 

Be a caregiver, have a caregiver, was that the mantra I heard at one point?

Create a daisy chain.

Am sorry but i will have to disagree about the Law being confusing to me it was written perfect IMHO if it wasn't written so well the Courts would not be trying to fight it so hard

[GregS]

4(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the (transfer, delivery, or distribution) 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.

 

A transferring pualifying patient who is not a caregiver to another patient but who is transferring to another "for the purpose of alleviating the (receiving) qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act" would seem to meet the requirement. Sure, I understand that some would argue that the transferring patient is not transferring for the purpose of treating or alleviating their own condition or symptoms, but nonetheless that transfer is for the purpose of treating or alleviating the receiving qualifying patient's condition or symptoms. Is that not enough? If not why not? Recall that in McQueen p2p through the dispensary was ruled a civil public nuisance rather than criminal matter. Nothing was decided regarding private transfers. Subsequently no criminal judgment was made regarding p2p. I am unaware that any patient has been charged for transferring to another while meeting sec. 4 requirements regarding possession limits and sec. 7 limitations, viz., not in a school or on a school bus or in any correctional facility. Is anyone else aware? Please respond to the last question first. Help me out. I am most curious regarding that.

 

I am looking for and will respond to answers that regard factual discourse, to include dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic) and not to any form of sophistry or lowbrow fallacy. I am not looking to insult anyone.

[imiubu]

Did all of you understand our law as well on Tuesday November 4, 2008, as you do now?

 

I did not.

[bobandtorey]

That is a great Q i think it should be a 2 part Q 

 

I knew that the Law was going to protect someone to grow and use as long as you had your 12 plants or less  locked up with your Rec; and 2.5 oz on hand we where told that at THC-F by our founding fathers Brad and Greg before we left there  Torey made sure she asked everyone there that day 

 

And before we went there i watched a video on Fox it was a two part showing you all the steps you needed to do too get your Rec someone was even on TV news making pancakes with Cannabis 

 

Part 2 is what we now have because of others pushing the Law and bad ruling from the C.O.A i didn't think about that part happening 

[Highlander]

4(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the (transfer, delivery, or distribution) 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.

 

A transferring pualifying patient who is not a caregiver to another patient but who is transferring to another "for the purpose of alleviating the (receiving) qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act" would seem to meet the requirement. Sure, I understand that some would argue that the transferring patient is not transferring for the purpose of treating or alleviating their own condition or symptoms, but nonetheless that transfer is for the purpose of treating or alleviating the receiving qualifying patient's condition or symptoms. Is that not enough? If not why not? Recall that in McQueen p2p through the dispensary was ruled a civil public nuisance rather than criminal matter. Nothing was decided regarding private transfers. Subsequently no criminal judgment was made regarding p2p. I am unaware that any patient has been charged for transferring to another while meeting sec. 4 requirements regarding possession limits and sec. 7 limitations, viz., not in a school or on a school bus or in any correctional facility. Is anyone else aware? Please respond to the last question first. Help me out. I am most curious regarding that.

 

I am looking for and will respond to answers that regard factual discourse, to include dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic) and not to any form of sophistry or lowbrow fallacy. I am not looking to insult anyone.

 

for the purpose of alleviating the (receiving) qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act"

 

You added "receiving" parenthetically, which changes the means of this sentence.  As written, and using proper grammar, this sentence doesn't refer to the receiving patient. 

 

but nonetheless that transfer is for the purpose of treating or alleviating the receiving qualifying patient's condition or symptoms. Is that not enough? If not why not?

 

It isn't enough because, as pointed out above, the grammatical construction of this passage doesn't support such a conclusion. 

 

(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.

 

If it said "a" instead of "the" then we'd have a sound argument.  But it says what it says, and so we live with it.  In a p2p transfer, you have 2 patients - yet the above passage says "the" patient, which means one patient.  In a p2p transaction, there are two patients involved with the same MMJ, yet the law only discusses one patient a time; which one is "the patient?"  So you have to evaluate each patient's actions individually.  One patient's action (the receiver) is for the purpose of alleviating his condition.   The other patient's action (the giver/seller's) is not.  So only only one patient has protection   You can't wedge both patients into the discussion at the same time.  There is no grammatical basis to do so.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Highlander

[+Malamute]

Well, I would say pretty close imubu.

 

If the original forums still existed, you would see almost everyone involved had a pretty good grasp of what could or couldn't happen then.  Then people wandered, re interpreted, held one eye closed and let greed take the lead. :-)

 

The one thing I would say I was wrong about was the fact that a patient can pass a joint to another patient.  I thought it would be allowed like 99%..... I was wrong.

 

 Other than that, naw,... I actually read the law. :-)

 

 I see most who were supposedly 'confused', never even read the law, or read it once and didn't take the time to ask questions to this original forum for instance, or go to one of the original 60-70 compassion clubs that existed.

 

:-)

 

But, the average person was completely clueless for sure ont he law.  I am an oddity along with several that still peruse these forums and "had it right" from the start.

[GregS]

for the purpose of alleviating the (receiving) qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act"

 

You added "receiving" parenthetically, which changes the means of this sentence.  As written, and using proper grammar, this sentence doesn't refer to the receiving patient. 

 

but nonetheless that transfer is for the purpose of treating or alleviating the receiving qualifying patient's condition or symptoms. Is that not enough? If not why not?

 

It isn't enough because, as pointed out above, the grammatical construction of this passage doesn't support such a conclusion. 

 

(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.

 

If it said "a" instead of "the" then we'd have a sound argument.  But it says what it says, and so we live with it.  In a p2p transfer, you have 2 patients - yet the above passage says "the" patient, which means one patient.  In a p2p transaction, there are two patients involved with the same MMJ, yet the law only discusses one patient a time; which one is "the patient?"  So you have to evaluate each patient's actions individually.  One patient's action (the receiver) is for the purpose of alleviating his condition.   The other patient's action (the giver/seller's) is not.  So only only one patient has protection   You can't wedge both patients into the discussion at the same time.  There is no grammatical basis to do so.

Thanks. Can you answer whether you are aware of anyone being charged in a private p2p exchange?

[Highlander]

Thanks. Can you answer whether you are aware of anyone being charged in a private p2p exchange?

 

Green?

[GregS]

Green?

Any others?

 

Anyone else know of anyone charged?

[Highlander]

Any others?

 

Anyone else know of anyone charged?

 

The Marshall alternatives people.  (I think that was their dispensary name)  They were busted by cops who had legit cards.  There were 1-2 other similar busts where cops who were legit patients bought from dispensaries.  As far as "regular folks" no I have not heard of other charges for p2p transactions.

[bobandtorey]

for the purpose of alleviating the (receiving) qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act"

 

You added "receiving" parenthetically, which changes the means of this sentence.  As written, and using proper grammar, this sentence doesn't refer to the receiving patient. 

 

but nonetheless that transfer is for the purpose of treating or alleviating the receiving qualifying patient's condition or symptoms. Is that not enough? If not why not?

 

It isn't enough because, as pointed out above, the grammatical construction of this passage doesn't support such a conclusion. 

 

(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.

 

If it said "a" instead of "the" then we'd have a sound argument.  But it says what it says, and so we live with it.  In a p2p transfer, you have 2 patients - yet the above passage says "the" patient, which means one patient.  In a p2p transaction, there are two patients involved with the same MMJ, yet the law only discusses one patient a time; which one is "the patient?"  So you have to evaluate each patient's actions individually.  One patient's action (the receiver) is for the purpose of alleviating his condition.   The other patient's action (the giver/seller's) is not.  So only only one patient has protection   You can't wedge both patients into the discussion at the same time.  There is no grammatical basis to do so.

i do believe that the letter A and the word THE was part of  an appeal by Oakland County when we where inn the C.O.A

[bobandtorey]

The Marshall alternatives people.  (I think that was their dispensary name)  They were busted by cops who had legit cards.  There were 1-2 other similar busts where cops who were legit patients bought from dispensaries.  As far as "regular folks" no I have not heard of other charges for p2p transactions.

Ferndale , Blue Water, Big Daddy, TJ Rice, chuck reams his place not Chuck himself , Lansing 7, just to name a few

[GregS]

So these were all dispensary operations? Aside from Green, have there been any other individuals?

[t-pain]

dig up an old thread from 2011 if you care to read what opinions were 2 years ago

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/31819-patient-to-patient-transfer-legality/

 

zapato thought p2p was legal...

also see a few posts from highlander in there.

seriously should just delete the last 4 years of posts here, so much incrimination going on...

 

sorry, searching google for any other patients who have been arrested for p2p. finding lots of threads here

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/30342-patient-to-patient-trnasfer/

 

few lawyers in 2011 said p2p was legal

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/2011/03/15/patient-to-patient-sales-of-medical-marijuana/

 

even some current websites say its legal!

http://www.mmmfaq.com/faq-2/

 

interview with a guy tj rice who ran ann arbor patient-to-patient compassion club

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-drug-felon-seeking-new-life-as-medical-marijuana-entrepreneur-but-battling-law/

 

another lawyer with interesting opinion on p2p before msc ruled on it

http://brucealanblock.com/medical-marijuana/medical-marijuana-blog/

 

does anyone remember what 4850 was originally?

http://www.mmmd.org/legislative-news/michigan-legislative-bills/

 

HB 4850 (Walsh-R)
Prohibits patient-to-patient transfers
-This bill would effectively prohibit patient-to-patient transfers by making the law’s affirmative defense unavailable to individuals who transfer marijuana to anyone if the transferor is not the primary caregiver and the transferee is not a patient to whom that caregiver is connected through the registry program. Transferors’ cards woould be permanently revoked. Also patients ( and other cardholders ) couldn’t obtain marijuana from anyone other than his/her own caregiver.

POSITION: MPP strongly opposes this bill. One of the most efficent and affordable ways for patients to obtain medical marijuana is from other patients who grow thier own and have overages they can transfer to other patients. It takes months for a planted marijuana seed to turn into a plant producing useable marijuana, so this bill would force patients to suffer while they waint. Even more alarming, this bill may essentially nullify the MMMA by prohibiting patients and caregivers from obtaining seeds.

 

i mean, when walsh has to come up with a bill that kills p2p , do you still think the law is clear??

lawyers, judges, even senators thought p2p was legal back then.

Edited December 28, 2013 by t-pain

[Highlander]

dig up an old thread from 2011 if you care to read what opinions were 2 years ago

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/31819-patient-to-patient-transfer-legality/

 

zapato thought p2p was legal...

also see a few posts from highlander in there.

seriously should just delete the last 4 years of posts here, so much incrimination going on...

 

sorry, searching google for any other patients who have been arrested for p2p. finding lots of threads here

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/30342-patient-to-patient-trnasfer/

 

few lawyers in 2011 said p2p was legal

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/2011/03/15/patient-to-patient-sales-of-medical-marijuana/

 

even some current websites say its legal!

http://www.mmmfaq.com/faq-2/

 

interview with a guy tj rice who ran ann arbor patient-to-patient compassion club

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-drug-felon-seeking-new-life-as-medical-marijuana-entrepreneur-but-battling-law/

 

another lawyer with interesting opinion on p2p before msc ruled on it

http://brucealanblock.com/medical-marijuana/medical-marijuana-blog/

 

does anyone remember what 4850 was originally?

http://www.mmmd.org/legislative-news/michigan-legislative-bills/

 

HB 4850 (Walsh-R)

Prohibits patient-to-patient transfers

-This bill would effectively prohibit patient-to-patient transfers by making the law’s affirmative defense unavailable to individuals who transfer marijuana to anyone if the transferor is not the primary caregiver and the transferee is not a patient to whom that caregiver is connected through the registry program. Transferors’ cards woould be permanently revoked. Also patients ( and other cardholders ) couldn’t obtain marijuana from anyone other than his/her own caregiver.

POSITION: MPP strongly opposes this bill. One of the most efficent and affordable ways for patients to obtain medical marijuana is from other patients who grow thier own and have overages they can transfer to other patients. It takes months for a planted marijuana seed to turn into a plant producing useable marijuana, so this bill would force patients to suffer while they waint. Even more alarming, this bill may essentially nullify the MMMA by prohibiting patients and caregivers from obtaining seeds.

 

i mean, when walsh has to come up with a bill that kills p2p , do you still think the law is clear??

lawyers, judges, even senators thought p2p was legal back then.

 

I waffled on the p2p matter, yes.  And where I finally ended up was that the pesky clause that the transfer must alleviate the "giver's" condition kinda ruined it...kinda sorta...And I'll credit PB for helping me form that opinion.  He pointed out that the presumption of medical use could be rebutted but that it didn't necessarily mean that if the presumption was rebutted that the action was bad.  So it seemed to me that if the presumption would be rebutted, then this would put a patient in a position where he had to prove (like a Section 8 defense) that his action was for the purpose of alleviating a patient's condition.  (not necessarily his condition).  And this came up in the SC McQueen oral arguments.  Chief Justice Young was all over this specific topic.  McQueen's attorney tried to argue that a PA could certainly try to make such a rebuttal...but Justice Young shut her down and would not even let her finish her response.  In his view, if your action was obviously not for the purpose of alleviating your condition, then you were sunk.   This is a good example of where maybe a better legal team would have been able to clear that hurdle.  

 

So I have to qualify that when I say today (and as I said in the past) that when I say p2p transfers are not "legal," this is the same as saying that the transfer is not protected by Section 4....but it might be found "ok" under Section 8.

 

And I'll also concede that I'm no legal professional, let alone a good one.  And one SC justice dissented on the p2p matter.  I certainly don't pretend to know more than a SC justice when it comes to interpreting the law.  Reasonable minds can and do disagree.  My point here is that, looking at the act as a whole, the weight of evidence leans heavily towards no Section 4 protection for p2p transfers. 

[bobandtorey]

So these were all dispensary operations? Aside from Green, have there been any other individuals?

Witch Green?

[bobandtorey]

dig up an old thread from 2011 if you care to read what opinions were 2 years ago

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/31819-patient-to-patient-transfer-legality/

 

zapato thought p2p was legal...

also see a few posts from highlander in there.

seriously should just delete the last 4 years of posts here, so much incrimination going on...

 

sorry, searching google for any other patients who have been arrested for p2p. finding lots of threads here

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/30342-patient-to-patient-trnasfer/

 

few lawyers in 2011 said p2p was legal

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/2011/03/15/patient-to-patient-sales-of-medical-marijuana/

 

even some current websites say its legal!

http://www.mmmfaq.com/faq-2/

 

interview with a guy tj rice who ran ann arbor patient-to-patient compassion club

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-drug-felon-seeking-new-life-as-medical-marijuana-entrepreneur-but-battling-law/

 

another lawyer with interesting opinion on p2p before msc ruled on it

http://brucealanblock.com/medical-marijuana/medical-marijuana-blog/

 

does anyone remember what 4850 was originally?

http://www.mmmd.org/legislative-news/michigan-legislative-bills/

 

HB 4850 (Walsh-R)

Prohibits patient-to-patient transfers

-This bill would effectively prohibit patient-to-patient transfers by making the law’s affirmative defense unavailable to individuals who transfer marijuana to anyone if the transferor is not the primary caregiver and the transferee is not a patient to whom that caregiver is connected through the registry program. Transferors’ cards woould be permanently revoked. Also patients ( and other cardholders ) couldn’t obtain marijuana from anyone other than his/her own caregiver.

POSITION: MPP strongly opposes this bill. One of the most efficent and affordable ways for patients to obtain medical marijuana is from other patients who grow thier own and have overages they can transfer to other patients. It takes months for a planted marijuana seed to turn into a plant producing useable marijuana, so this bill would force patients to suffer while they waint. Even more alarming, this bill may essentially nullify the MMMA by prohibiting patients and caregivers from obtaining seeds.

 

i mean, when walsh has to come up with a bill that kills p2p , do you still think the law is clear??

lawyers, judges, even senators thought p2p was legal back then.

Thank you so much i have a tread going right now about a look back of the year 2013  and if i could or you could start one i would fill it in with what  i had posted