Who Is Eligible For Section 8 ?

[bobandtorey]

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/23775-people-v-provost/page-4

 

i think it may have been hope this helps

[Dr. Bob]

 

I was thinking along the lines of future uses for asserting section 8 in appeals. It would be nice if a big section 8 decisions go our way. If the supreme court came with favorable ex post facto (unregistered sales) or entrapment (fake cards etc) would you plan on asserting sect 8 motion?

 

The biggest problem you run into with the caregiver/patient transfer outside of the registry is that it defacto legalizes dispensaries without calling it such.  You also remove the need to 'register' a patient to a caregiver, which is the clear intent of the act- to have everyone registered properly, but allow for a defense in an extraordinary circumstance (for example a cancer patient with high needs having 14 plants, or a minor violation of the act like an unsecured grow).

 

If we could transfer outside of the registry, we'd have dispensaries operating under the model (granted we do, but they are regularly raided, mostly with bad outcomes for the owners) and we would have caregivers with dozens of patients (we hear about them all the time getting 'busted').  

 

The point is all the talk about trying to justify transfers outside of the registry system is just that, talk and an attempt to make the act do something it wasn't designed to do- large scale commercial transactions.  Stick to 1 caregiver/5 patients with registry association, 1 patient, 12 plants and 2.5 ounces.  Any attempt to go outside of that model is asking for trouble few of us need or can afford (attorney fees, court costs, lost work, emotional turmoil of becoming involved in the legal system, etc.).

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

The biggest problem you run into with the caregiver/patient transfer outside of the registry is that it defacto legalizes dispensaries without calling it such.  You also remove the need to 'register' a patient to a caregiver, which is the clear intent of the act- to have everyone registered properly, but allow for a defense in an extraordinary circumstance (for example a cancer patient with high needs having 14 plants, or a minor violation of the act like an unsecured grow).

 

If we could transfer outside of the registry, we'd have dispensaries operating under the model (granted we do, but they are regularly raided, mostly with bad outcomes for the owners) and we would have caregivers with dozens of patients (we hear about them all the time getting 'busted').  

 

The point is all the talk about trying to justify transfers outside of the registry system is just that, talk and an attempt to make the act do something it wasn't designed to do- large scale commercial transactions.  Stick to 1 caregiver/5 patients with registry association, 1 patient, 12 plants and 2.5 ounces.  Any attempt to go outside of that model is asking for trouble few of us need or can afford (attorney fees, court costs, lost work, emotional turmoil of becoming involved in the legal system, etc.).

 

Dr. Bob

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT

Initiated Law 1 of 2008(exerpt)

AN INITIATION of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act.

 

 

Nowhere in the act does it state that sec. 8 is intended as you describe. Rather, it states that any patient or any caregiver can use it in any prosecution involving cannabis. It has equal standing with sec. 4 registry. That you argue that it is necessary to limit the AD to those type of instances you describe is irresponsible magical thinking. Again, Bob, you are not looking out for our liberal use of cannabis, but obviously wish to restrain us from that. We would not have a medical marijuana law if it had not been for the millions who pushed past the then existing limits, and Colorado and Washington State certainly would not have the liberty guaranteed to us as Americans likewise. It is up to us to reach out and take it. The government is certainly not going to give it up if we don't demand it. Take your milquetoast advice somewhere else. It is pretty plain that you would fit right in at the COA or Schuette's office.

Edited May 24, 2014 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

People are adults and know what level of risk they are comfortable with, including the costs and difficulty in proving the affirmative defense if they go outside of section 4.  They can weigh the arguments and read the papers.  Then they can make their own choices.  I recommend my patients play it safe, and have seen the results of folks trying to use section 8 to stretch the limits of the act to suit themselves.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

I'm glad to see that you have come to recognize us as big people. That has been my point right along. It is up to each of us to perform due diligence in determining participation. Your point is taken, and I am happy to see that you have come to understand that it is not the be all, end all that you have insisted for so long now.

 

'bout effin time.

Edited May 24, 2014 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

No change here, I still don't support relying on section 8.  I don't support using it as a justification for commercial sales.  And most importantly in your case, I don't recommend people take the chance without taking it myself first, simply because I want test cases to justify something I want to do.

 

Section 8 is an emergency measure when section 4 is violated.  The Act revolves around section 4.  Section 8 is not a substitute for following section 4, it is what your lawyer will try to use to justify your actions and save you from conviction.  To say section 8 is equally important to section 4 is foolish.  It implies a choice, you can either comply with section 4 or you can do whatever you want and claim compliance with section 8.  That is clearly not the case and will get folks in trouble, which is why I do not promote folks starting with section 8 as a basis for their understanding of the act.

 

Dr. Bob

[Norby]

The biggest problem you run into with the caregiver/patient transfer outside of the registry is that it defacto legalizes dispensaries without calling it such.  You also remove the need to 'register' a patient to a caregiver, which is the clear intent of the act- to have everyone registered properly, but allow for a defense in an extraordinary circumstance (for example a cancer patient with high needs having 14 plants, or a minor violation of the act like an unsecured grow).

 

If we could transfer outside of the registry, we'd have dispensaries operating under the model (granted we do, but they are regularly raided, mostly with bad outcomes for the owners) and we would have caregivers with dozens of patients (we hear about them all the time getting 'busted').  

 

The point is all the talk about trying to justify transfers outside of the registry system is just that, talk and an attempt to make the act do something it wasn't designed to do- large scale commercial transactions.  Stick to 1 caregiver/5 patients with registry association, 1 patient, 12 plants and 2.5 ounces.  Any attempt to go outside of that model is asking for trouble few of us need or can afford (attorney fees, court costs, lost work, emotional turmoil of becoming involved in the legal system, etc.).

 

Dr. Bob

Clear intent of the act?  I don't think it's clear to everyone, mostly the people who voted for it as they are now pushing for outright decriminalization since there are still persecutions of medical patients.

  And if a caregiver could service more than 5 patients the law would work as the quality caregivers would rise to the top.  Right now there are patients getting subpar meds and having to go thru too many hoops or too far to procure good meds because your guaranteed 5 patients if you want to be a caregiver because of stats. It seems to me that your siding with the COA and Shuette and the one sitting on 4271 in saying we don't want this public initiative stuff getting out of hand.

 

  I mean why would the law state patients are protected getting their meds from anywhere but anyone selling to them are not?  Why would the cops be able to make fake cards to entrap people trying to help patients?  Why can the patients get from anywhere but law enforcement and the gov't continues to try and persecute anyone trying to help a patient?  If the law was enforced as intended there wouldn't be law enforcement acting as patients to arrest people!!  I read that as your being against your patients freedoms to get good meds and from who they want.  The law is obviously contradictory in that sense which leads the COA and others to use loopholes or biased interpretation to persecute YOUR patients,

[Dr. Bob]

I'm just grateful for the gift of the voters in 2008 to allow the sick access to cannabis.  The law clearly allows them to grow it themselves, it allows them to alternatively name a caregiver.  In fact, it allows patients to get it from any source.  It allows their caregivers to transfer it to them for compensation.  It does not allow dispensaries, and it does not allow anyone to sell cannabis to a patient without risking legal issues.  It also allows folks to try and justify their actions if they don't follow section 4.  

 

What it does not do is legalize it or let you do whatever you want.  There are bills supporting dispensaries, bills I support.  There are bills clarifying the legality of medibles, which I support.  When these bills pass, and it is legal, I would gladly send my folks to the dispensaries and farmers markets to buy brownies.  Until then, we deal with the limitations of the law as it currently is written and interpreted by the courts.

 

It is great there is strong support for legalization...long overdue in my opinion.  When the legislation is passed, this will be a moot point.  Until it is, we deal with what we have.

 

Nuff said.

[Dr. Bob]

Here is the danger of trying to make a law 'fit' what you want to do....  This is a two part tape

 

Part 1  

 

Part 2  

 

While this is not a medical marijuana case, it is the case of an 'open carry' advocate wearing a pistol in a hospital.  The basic premise is:

 

1/  It is illegal under his cpl to carry concealed in a hospital, he was not concealed, it was carried openly for all to see so it was legal..

2/  'Gun Free' Zones do not apply to open carries

3/  Since most mass attacks (90%) occur in 'Gun Free Zones' by criminals, that is where open carry is needed most and why the current law allows it.

 

Listen to the results.  He walked out still convinced 'his' interpretation of the law was correct and everyone on the gun board (leo and prosecutors) were incorrect in 'their' interpretation of the law.  The titles of the videos are:

 

EXPOSED Marc Curtis & Muskegon Gun Board are CLUELESS on MI Gun Laws & Open Carry

 

Dr. Bob

 

Moral of the story, don't open carry in a Hospital unless you are a cop.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Let's address my friend Norby as well on a specific point in this example.  I certainly agree that most attacks have taken place in "Gun Free Zones".  I think it would be an OUTSTANDING idea to allow a responsible cpl holder, perhaps even one with a special license and/or some extra training or some sort of certification, to be allowed to carry in a gun free zone.  

 

But that is an idea, a wish, a 'way it should be'.  The current law does not allow it.  When it changes, I'll be the first to sign up for it.  Unless SFC beats me to it.  Until then, we deal with the less than perfect 'way it is'.

 

Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

Clear intent of the act?  I don't think it's clear to everyone, mostly the people who voted for it as they are now pushing for outright decriminalization since there are still persecutions of medical patients.

  And if a caregiver could service more than 5 patients the law would work as the quality caregivers would rise to the top.  Right now there are patients getting subpar meds and having to go thru too many hoops or too far to procure good meds because your guaranteed 5 patients if you want to be a caregiver because of stats. It seems to me that your siding with the COA and Shuette and the one sitting on 4271 in saying we don't want this public initiative stuff getting out of hand.

 

  I mean why would the law state patients are protected getting their meds from anywhere but anyone selling to them are not?  Why would the cops be able to make fake cards to entrap people trying to help patients?  Why can the patients get from anywhere but law enforcement and the gov't continues to try and persecute anyone trying to help a patient?  If the law was enforced as intended there wouldn't be law enforcement acting as patients to arrest people!!  I read that as your being against your patients freedoms to get good meds and from who they want.  The law is obviously contradictory in that sense which leads the COA and others to use loopholes or biased interpretation to persecute YOUR patients,

You need to understand the difference between entrapment and getting tricked by LEO. Entrapment is when LEOs coerce you into breaking a law that you would otherwise not break. The Supreme Court made it pretty clear that patient to patient transfers are illegal as are transfers from a CG to a patient not connected to him through the registration process. So when a LEO with a fake card buys MMJ from a patient or CG without signing the transferor as his CG, this isn't entrapment. It is a tricky move.

 

Let's use a Craigslist connection and sale as an example. The seller meets a legit patient at McDonanlds and transfers an ounce without the two making a legit relationship through the MMMP process. That, according to the Supreme Court, is illegal. So it doesn't matter at that point if the buyer is a real patient or a liar LEO who faked illness to get a card. The transaction is illegal in either case. So if the seller sells to a LEO with an ill-gotten card, there is no difference under the law.

 

On the other hand if the LEO who gets a card under fraudulent circumstances signs a change form appointing someone as his CG then turns around three weeks later and arrests the CG, that is entrapment. Because obviously the CG did not intend to transfer meds to someone who was not his legit patient.

 

There is a big difference between these scenarios, and the smart folks will understand and act accordingly.

[t-pain]

imo highlander we should leave 'illegal' out of the discussion ,since the term is kind of useless. the mich supreme court said p2p wasnt protected under sec4, but that mcqueen gets his sec8 hearing...

 

all marijuana is illegal. sec4 protects from arrest and prosecution, sec8 from prosecution.

 

so in a fake card transaction, the transferer has to prove 8a3

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

sec8 covers transfers for medical use. so one has to prove that a fake card is entrapment and that a transferer wouldnt transfer to a non patient.

 

at least in my understanding. it just depends on each persons case and if they required patient to have the card. i'm going to say fake card is entrapment, but i would like to review other states on this. i remember fake cards being upheld in other states.

[bustedinclintontwsp]

Section 8 is a larger umbrella than section 4. After they eventually have to answer to the people.

People were arrested and convicted for caregiver patient sales before McQueen.

The people deserve an answer soon on section 8 rights. 6 years and no section 8 law is BS.

If both patients are registered and one is a caregiver a one ounce transfer of marijuana in a McD's parking lot is legal, unless the pig has a fake card then that is the only thing illegal about the transfer, the fake card= ENTRAPMENT. And if the pigs went to a Dr and got a recommendation they may be legal weather they like it or not.

Fake cards and fictitious papers are illegal under state law....

[Highlander]

imo highlander we should leave 'illegal' out of the discussion ,since the term is kind of useless. the mich supreme court said p2p wasnt protected under sec4, but that mcqueen gets his sec8 hearing...

 

all marijuana is illegal. sec4 protects from arrest and prosecution, sec8 from prosecution.

 

so in a fake card transaction, the transferer has to prove 8a3

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

sec8 covers transfers for medical use. so one has to prove that a fake card is entrapment and that a transferer wouldnt transfer to a non patient.

 

at least in my understanding. it just depends on each persons case and if they required patient to have the card. i'm going to say fake card is entrapment, but i would like to review other stateside on this. i remember fake cards being upheld in other states.

Fair enough. Let's leave "illegal" out of the discussion.

 

So let's talk more about Section 8, specifically, this:

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

It says a patient AND the patient's primary caregiver. Not a patient OR a patient's primary caregiver. So we kinda have to conclude that if a provider (caregiver) wishes to advance a section 8 defense for transferring meds to a patient not connected to him through the registry, then the patient also needs to be on board.

 

8a3. "The patient AND the patient's CG were involved in the transfer, etc of MJ to alleviate the patient's debilitating condition [paraphrased]"

 

If the patient wasn't involved in order to alleviate his condition ( he was LEO involved to bust a CG) then there is no "and". In order for section 8 to stick the patient AND the CG must be looking to alleviate the patient's condition. "Or" would be a nice life preserver. But we have "and" to contend with.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Highlander

[bobandtorey]

I agree we do have  "And" , "The" ,  and "A"  to contend with also  they are such small words but very powerful in a well crafted  Law as ours

[bustedinclintontwsp]

that's what makes it entrapment. It could be a legal transfer if some rogue police officers fake cards and recommendation. That's why it is entrapment, and they should be able to get a few arrests without this. People can say whatever they want this is immoral and illegal. Any pigs busting people and using a tool that is 4 or 5 years from a Mi sCt rule is garbage. They cannot arrest cg or p without all this BS, that's what makes the whole law entrapment.

[bustedinclintontwsp]

it would make more sense if it said "caregiver registered with the MDOH". that would be better than sending people to prison for a and the.

I agree we do have  "And" , "The" ,  and "A"  to contend with also  they are such small words but very powerful in a well crafted  Law as ours

[GregS]

You need to understand the difference between entrapment and getting tricked by LEO. Entrapment is when LEOs coerce you into breaking a law that you would otherwise not break. The Supreme Court made it pretty clear that patient to patient transfers are illegal as are transfers from a CG to a patient not connected to him through the registration process. So when a LEO with a fake card buys MMJ from a patient or CG without signing the transferor as his CG, this isn't entrapment. It is a tricky move.

 

Let's use a Craigslist connection and sale as an example. The seller meets a legit patient at McDonanlds and transfers an ounce without the two making a legit relationship through the MMMP process. That, according to the Supreme Court, is illegal. So it doesn't matter at that point if the buyer is a real patient or a liar LEO who faked illness to get a card. The transaction is illegal in either case. So if the seller sells to a LEO with an ill-gotten card, there is no difference under the law.

 

On the other hand if the LEO who gets a card under fraudulent circumstances signs a change form appointing someone as his CG then turns around three weeks later and arrests the CG, that is entrapment. Because obviously the CG did not intend to transfer meds to someone who was not his legit patient.

 

There is a big difference between these scenarios, and the smart folks will understand and act accordingly.

Hence an agreement executed between the parties (in this case a police officer and a caregiver) spelling out compliance with the law in a pt/cg relationship, registered or unregistered, duly signed and /or notarized, that is sworn to and attests to said compliance, would that not be enough to establish fraud on the part of the officer who presents false documents in participating in those agreements, and clearly prove entrapment?

Edited May 25, 2014 by GregS

[t-pain]

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any,

 

It says a patient AND the patient's primary caregiver. Not a patient OR a patient's primary caregiver.

 

the 'if any' part basically means "and = or" in that sentence. dont ask me why it was written like that.

[Highlander]

I don't think so. "If any" means if the patient has a primary caregiver. This doesn't get past the requirement in 8a3 that the patient and the CG were involved with MJ for the purpose of alleviating a medical condition. If LEOs purpose for the transaction is to bust a patient rather than alleviate a condition, how will the patient AND caregiver show that they were involved with MJ for the purpose of alleviating a medical condition?

[bustedinclintontwsp]

I'm no lawyer but to me this is what makes it illegal! It would be legal, unless the cops MAKE it illegal. Most departments know all this is entrapment even Oakland county calls fake cards entrapement, now the use fake paperwork

I don't think so. "If any" means if the patient has a primary caregiver. This doesn't get past the requirement in 8a3 that the patient and the CG were involved with MJ for the purpose of alleviating a medical condition. If LEOs purpose for the transaction is to bust a patient rather than alleviate a condition, how will the patient AND caregiver show that they were involved with MJ for the purpose of alleviating a medical condition?

[GregS]

I don't think so. "If any" means if the patient has a primary caregiver. This doesn't get past the requirement in 8a3 that the patient and the CG were involved with MJ for the purpose of alleviating a medical condition. If LEOs purpose for the transaction is to bust a patient rather than alleviate a condition, how will the patient AND caregiver show that they were involved with MJ for the purpose of alleviating a medical condition?

By the presentment of a signed, notarized agreement between the two that states something like:

 

Patient/Caregiver Agreement to Engage in the Medical Use of Marijuana

 

 

I,______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am a patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008.

 

__Dr._____________________________, a physician authorized under Part 170 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17001 to 333.17084, or an osteopathic physician under Part 175 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17501 to 333.17556, physician license I.D. number____________________ , has stated that in the physician's professional opinion, on or about (date)___________________________, and after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate a debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition (copy attached) .

 

Or:

 

__A registry card duly issued by the State of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) , number______________________(copy attached), has been issued to me which attests to a physician's recommendation that in the physician's professional opinion, and after having completed a full assessment of my medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate a debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

I hereby designate_______________________________ as my caregiver under that law, and agree to conform to the Act in the medical use of marijuana.

 

I, ______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am at least 21 years of age and have agreed to assist with the above named patient's medical use of marijuana in accordance with that law. I have not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and have 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.

 

Confidentiality: Each party agrees and undertakes that it shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of the other, disclose or make available to any person, reproduce or transmit in any manner or use (directly or indirectly) for its own benefit or the benefit of others, any Confidential Information, save and except that both parties may disclose any Confidential Information to their legal advisers and counselors for the specific purposes contemplated by this agreement. Presentment or disclosure of this information is not prohibited as required by law or in any prosecution pertaining to the medical use of marijuana. 

 

For the purpose of this Agreement, Legal advisers and counselors shall mean, with respect to any party, any person licensed to practice at law, or any paralegal, legal assistant, or other person directly supervised by an attorney at law who is ultimately responsible for any and all work product. 

 

Subscribed and sworn before me this date: ____________________________

 

Patient sign here: _________________________________

 

Subscribed and sworn before me this date: ____________________________

 

Caregiver sign here: ________________________________

 

/s/_________________________________

 

Print Notary Name: ________________________________

 

Notary public, State of Michigan, County of _____________________

 

My commission expires ___________________ 

 

Acting in the County of ___________________ 

 

Supporting documents are here: https://sites.google...attredirects=0, and here

https://sites.google...?attredirects=0

 

 

All of what you speak is specifically sworn to Highlander. It costs nothing but ink and paper and establishes intent. Do you agree?

Edited May 26, 2014 by GregS

[t-pain]

well, plus notary fees

 

imo greg, that paper makes someone sign that marijuana can be useful for them. but what i'd want to see is an agreement that the marijuana being transferred was for medical use only to treat a condition.

 

the reason i make this distinction is that the cop will say it wasnt for medical use when he gets on the stand.

but if he signs that he will only use it for medical use, at least thats a lie on paper...

and it says right in sec8 that it has to be for medical use. so i want the cop to say its for medical use.

 

 

also i'd change 'in accordance with that law' to 'in accordance with MCL 333.26421 - 333.26430'

 

(nothing in my posts should be taken as legal advice...)

Edited May 26, 2014 by t-pain

[t-pain]

if i was a caregiver, before i signed any patient or transferred anything i'd be asking to see medical charts/notes.

[Highlander]

By the presentment of a signed, notarized agreement between the two that states something like:

 

 

Patient/Caregiver Agreement to Engage in the Medical Use of Marijuana

 

I,______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am a patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008.__Dr._____________________________, a physician authorized under Part 170 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17001 to 333.17084, or an osteopathic physician under Part 175 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17501 to 333.17556, physician license I.D. number____________________ ,has stated that in the physician's professional opinion, on or about (date)___________________________, and after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that[/size] I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition (copy attached) .[/size]Or:__A registry card duly issued by the State of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) , number______________________(copy attached), has been issued to me which attests to a physician's recommendation that in the physician's professional opinion, and after having completed a full assessment of my medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana[/size] to treat or alleviate the debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition[/size].I hereby designate_______________________________ as my caregiver under that law, and agree to conform to the Act in the medical use of marijuana.I, ______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am at least 21 years of age and have agreed to assist with the above named patient's medical use of marijuana in accordance with that law. I have not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and have 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.Confidentiality: Each party agrees and undertakes that it shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of the other, disclose or make available to any person, reproduce or transmit in any manner or use (directly or indirectly) for its own benefit or the benefit of others, any Confidential Information, save and except that both parties may disclose any Confidential Information to their legal advisers and counselors for the specific purposes contemplated by this agreement. Presentment or disclosure of this information is not prohibited as required by law or in any prosecution pertaining to the medical use of marijuana. For the purpose of this Agreement, Legal advisers and counselors shall mean, with respect to any party, any person licensed to practice at law, or any paralegal, legal assistant, or other person directly supervised by an attorney at law who is ultimately responsible for any and all work product. Subscribed and sworn before me this date: ____________________________Patient sign here: _________________________________Subscribed and sworn before me this date: ____________________________Caregiver sign here: ________________________________/s/_________________________________Print Notary Name: ________________________________Notary public, State of Michigan, County of _____________________My commission expires ___________________ Acting in the County of ___________________ [/size]Supporting documents are here: https://sites.google...attredirects=0, and herehttps://sites.google...?attredirects=0

 

 

All of what you speak is specifically sworn to Highlander. It costs nothing but ink and paper and establishes intent. Do you agree?

I like the idea of LEO having to make such a statement if he is out to get you. But I'm still concerned that LEO can lie and cheat and do stuff that would land either of us in jail but LEO has immunity. So I'm not sure what legal weight your document adds. But I'm not a legal professional. If nothing else, this added level of diligence would probably be looked upon favorably by a jury.

 

I'm compelled by bustedinclintownship's position on entrapment. I'll admit that I've been pretty outspoken that a LEO with a fake card who tricks a CG into selling to him doesn't amount to entrapment. This is where things get tricky and maybe a little above my pay scale. But this is where I think the rubber hits the road as it relates to section 8 transfers from CG to a patient not licensed to him.

 

I see this going one of two ways:

 

1.the courts interpret section 8 to more or less say that as long as the patient OR the caregiver was involved with MJ for the purpose of alleviating a patient's condition, then the transaction is OK.

 

2. The courts interpret section 8 to say that the patient AND the caregiver must be involved with MMJ for the purpose of alleviating a patient's condition. In other words, if you are a CG who sold to a LEO with a fake card, then this represents a situation where we don't have the patient's involvement with MJ being for the purpose of alleviating his condition, and since Section 8 requires that both the patient and the caregiver are involved with MMJ for the purpose of alleviating .....(etc.) the seller/caregiver loses.

 

 

What is really compelling about this is that if the law is/will be interpreted as in 1.) above, then the entrapment argument falls apart with regard to LEOs with fake documents. Yet it would be better for us MMJ folks if the courts went this this interpretation.

 

If the courts decided that the patient and CG must both show an intent to alleviate a patient' condition, then I totally agree with bustedinclintontownship's position that a sale under these circumstances, if to a posing-LEO probably amounts to entrapment.

 

So which of these two interpretations is better for us?