Who Is Eligible For Section 8 ?

[GregS]

 

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...)

 

Any bank offers free notary service to their regular customers. I can barely imagine anyone without a bank account. They are simple to open and keep open. Just about all lawyers' and some doctors' offices have a notary on staff. Even despite that, if you hire a notary they are limited by law to charging ten dollars to notarize a document. It is as simple as a quick meeting at your bank to sign and notarize the document. Notary commissions are cheap and easy to come by through the Secretary of State. A doctor's office manager or other staff member can notarize the documents between the physician and the patient once they have that commission.

 

The agreement is testimony that the officer (or for that matter any person) swears to be a legitimate patient and has presented documents to assure their eligibility to use cannabis in accordance with the act. Note the option to use a copy of either a card or the notarized supporting document (a link to which is found at the bottom of the agreement) from the patient's physician that cannabis can be used to treat or alleviate and with explicit instruction that copies be incorporated into the agreement. The caregiver is acting in good faith to ensure compliance. The notarized supporting documents are intended to be used between the patient and their physician, again swearing to compliance in a bona fide relationship and the intention to use cannabis to treat or alleviate in accordance. It might be best if both a card and a copy of the supporting doctor's recommendation be used. If a police officer forges documents that would if they were legitimate be in compliance, that officer has explicitly committed fraud and entrapment and the case must be dismissed. 

 

Much of the text of the pt/cg agreement is lifted straight from the MMA; cut and pasted. There is no need to embellish it further. It is incumbent on the caregiver to insist that all paperwork be duly executed and no excuses otherwise accepted. If a patient were to refuse for any reason, it would be time to wish them a good day and walk away. 

Edited July 29, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

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?

Neither of these examples reflect the criminal seriousness of the fraud that would be committed by the officer. That s/he would include a copy of authorization, either card or document, that does not result from a bona fide physician/patient relationship, that copy would be a forgery. These documents are, again, sworn testimony that the patient and the patient's caregiver are engaged in the medical use of cannabis to treat or alleviate the patient's condition. The officer would be guilty of perjury in addition to fraud and entrapment, especially if s/he were to take the stand and testify to something other than what the signed agreement affirms. Those are very serious crimes that I believe would preclude the caregiver from being convicted. After all, how much more good faith can a caregiver perform?

Edited May 26, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

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

Except for HIPPA that would be a good idea. Patients are not required to disclose their intimate medical records and the MMA cannot require that they do.

 

You do not want to make this any more complicated than it has to be. 

Edited May 26, 2014 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

Patients are not required to disclose their intimate medical records 

 

Thanks but i disagree to this because it's the first thing you will have to give up if someone ends up in Court in our case the prosecutor was allowed to take our medical records home for the weekend and after reading all of them she came back and said in her opinion their was nothing wrong with the both of us 

 

Today i can speak freely of our case

[cheapshades]

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

 

As a patient, I would not show my medical records/charts/notes to anyone other than a licensed medical professional.

 

As a caregiver, I would only request a copy of the certification doctor's signed certification form for my records.  The patient would be advised that he/she could redact any personal medical notes made by the doctor on that form if they felt uncomfortable with it being viewed.

 

Update 27 May:  I made the above statement based solely on my personal view of medical record privacy, and not in the light of a Sect 8 scenario.  

Edited May 27, 2014 by cheapshades

[bobandtorey]

As a patient, I would not show my medical records/charts/notes to anyone other than a licensed medical professional

 

I wouldn't ether but as i said if someone ended up in a Court room you would have too give them up 

[Norby]

What pisses me off is that it's all moo poo.  Laws are for politicians, right and wrong are for people and the law isn't working fast enough for a lot of people.  People waiting for meds like me would have had to smuggle it all from NY since I knew no one here if it weren't for dispensaries.  And I see why they say flower the law.

 

  It's disheartening, to say the least, to know I have sitting here what can cure people's cancer and relieve their pain but I can't do a darn thing about it because of the law(even though I still have 2 patient openings).  I was in the same place they are which means I know about how they feel and it kills me.  Whenever I hear someone say "well that's the way the law is written and what it means" I want to strangle someone!  The "law" isn't totally "right" as there are a lot of people still suffering who can be helped very easily if it weren't for LEO.  They are fighting sideways to screw patients and using patient status to draw suppliers out into the open!  I could see if it were heroin and they were just getting the idea it was good for pain because it's TOXIC.  But MJ isn't.  Does anyone else ever get up and realize how insane some "laws" are and how much you have to train yourself to "act right" according to our "laws" because, if your compassionate, you'd choose "right" over "law"?

 

  I'm sorry but discussing this is making me feel very insane and I'll have to back out.

[GregS]

I'm insane and lovin' it. But we all knew that.

 

Using documents such as these is a cheap and easy extra layer of protection. As long as they spell out a bona fide dr/pt relationship wherein the physician has stated... and that the pt and cg are engaged to treat and alleviate, all that is left to prove under the AD is the quantity in question. My take is that our smoke and mirrors in that argument are better than their smoke and mirrors, and our smoke is much, much better.

 

There is no need to make this more complicated. The law is clear. The Supreme Court agrees that we must be afforded sec. 8 defenses and that those cases be dismissed when all of the elements of sec. 8 are proved. The documents go a long way toward proving two of the three necessary elements. I believe that smart people should not be without these documents because it is widely known the extremes that law enforcement will go to entrap us and that things can go wrong even in a compliant and registered pt/cg relationship. Once we are compelled to walk into court to defend ourselves, we need all the help we can get. You know. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (pun intended). I also think it appropriate to bring up again the necessity to keep doctors from testifying, something else these help to ensure.

Edited May 26, 2014 by GregS

[bustedinclintontwsp]

Neither are good for us. If the only thing illegal for a section 8 hearing is that a cop created this crime and situation with felonious paperwork NOT FICTITOUS FELONIOUS. Then I don't have section 8 rights because a cop befriended me, lured me to their jurisdiction, purchased otherwise legally meds, while understanding how to manipulate "a" or :"the " patient THEY HOLD THE POWER to the defense of the crime. Then they go to court and say that the "prescription" is no good because they lied to the doctor to get it. My arresting officer was retired early for this.

If they have to lie and use paperwork to arrest people for actions not even deemed protected or unprotected yet they should burn in hell. A cop can lie to a doctor and get a recommendation in a fake name that is no good. Then lie to the medical provider stating they have cancer and need one ounce of mm a week, Then agree that you are their caregiver, then BEG for meds to treat their CANCER. That is entrapment especially when the whole time they are premeditating a crime! That premeditation making sure the medical provider does certain things that have not been deemed protected or not! The whole time the COA and circuit courts rely on overturned cases to convict you to make their new law.

this is entRAPEment. they are gentlemen

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?

[GregS]

Patients are not required to disclose their intimate medical records 

 

Thanks but i disagree to this because it's the first thing you will have to give up if someone ends up in Court in our case the prosecutor was allowed to take our medical records home for the weekend and after reading all of them she came back and said in her opinion their was nothing wrong with the both of us 

 

Today i can speak freely of our case

I'm sure you can use those medial records in court when your balls are on the line. They are, after all, both yours. I am not certain that a judge can subpoena them, but if that is the case, they can only work to your benefit if you are a legitimate patient. Those records should not be disclosed, however, to a caregiver, if for no other reason then not telling them what they don't need to know, one of the best rules I have ever found, but sillier things happen all the time.

Edited May 26, 2014 by GregS

[bustedinclintontwsp]

The whole section 8 affirmative defense cannot be disallowed by premeditated felonious activity by the LEO. So assume a section 8 defense is available. Why would anyone think it is ok to have rinky dink city police officers lure mm people tot their town to bust them in undercover sting operations that end with masked gunmen? Then the judges convict you and say what you did is illegal because of the cops actions. No way fake cards go to supreme court without clarification, too bad whatever they clarify will take afew test too.... This means that MI law is to arrest and make the ill felons build these case laws from jail. Then they arrest a dispensary 2 miles over and don't even charge them. This is bs no argument about it

[bustedinclintontwsp]

1. The real problem is the COA. they are undermining our rights with every case. So now for afew years people will be convicted with hartwick, surely these opinions will be disregarded by sct. Many COA opinions are overturned. I say the COA should not have authority in MMMA cases

[GregS]

The whole section 8 affirmative defense cannot be disallowed by premeditated felonious activity by the LEO. So assume a section 8 defense is available. Why would anyone think it is ok to have rinky dink city police officers lure mm people tot their town to bust them in undercover sting operations that end with masked gunmen? Then the judges convict you and say what you did is illegal because of the cops actions. No way fake cards go to supreme court without clarification, too bad whatever they clarify will take afew test too.... This means that MI law is to arrest and make the ill felons build these case laws from jail. Then they arrest a dispensary 2 miles over and don't even charge them. This is bs no argument about it

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding entrapment and that Highlander explained it best. It appears that what you describe is a transfer between two parties who declare that they are registered, but not with the sec. 4 requisite association through the registry. Subsequently the only possible way out is the AD. To succeed in that the patient must state that s/he appoints you as their caregiver. Without proof of that you will likely go to jail. The agreement/contract requires that they swear that they have named you as caregiver and that you accept that designation based on their sworn assurance that their bona fides are good, with or without registry.

 

Why would anyone not take the sane extra step to protect themselves?

Edited June 4, 2014 by GregS

[Highlander]

Neither are good for us. If the only thing illegal for a section 8 hearing is that a cop created this crime and situation with felonious paperwork NOT FICTITOUS FELONIOUS. Then I don't have section 8 rights because a cop befriended me, lured me to their jurisdiction, purchased otherwise legally meds, while understanding how to manipulate "a" or :"the " patient THEY HOLD THE POWER to the defense of the crime. Then they go to court and say that the "prescription" is no good because they lied to the doctor to get it. My arresting officer was retired early for this.

If they have to lie and use paperwork to arrest people for actions not even deemed protected or unprotected yet they should burn in hell. A cop can lie to a doctor and get a recommendation in a fake name that is no good. Then lie to the medical provider stating they have cancer and need one ounce of mm a week, Then agree that you are their caregiver, then BEG for meds to treat their CANCER. That is entrapment especially when the whole time they are premeditating a crime! That premeditation making sure the medical provider does certain things that have not been deemed protected or not! The whole time the COA and circuit courts rely on overturned cases to convict you to make their new law.

this is entRAPEment. they are gentlemen

I get where you are coming from but unfortunately I think your understanding of how things work in the real world falls short. I can be cruising along I-75 at 85 mph hour and LEO can drive 120 to catch me. It is OK for him to speed but not me. Similarly, an undercover LEO can buy crack at a crack house in the ordinary course of doing his job. He can walk away with a huge bag of crack but that doesn't make him a criminal. The fact that he has a pistol in his sock when making a controlled buy doesn't expose him to a felony firearm charge with a mandatory two-year minimum - let alone the minimum sentence one would get for a huge bag of crack.

 

You have to understand that ordinary law doesn't apply to LEO. A LEO can take your two ounces of cannabis as evidence, but this doesn't suddenly force him into a situation where he is in possession of a controlled substance and therefore on the wrong side of the law.

[bobandtorey]

I'm sure you can use those medial records in court when your balls are on the line. They are, after all, both yours. I am not certain that a judge can subpoena them, but if that is the case, they can only work to your benefit if you are a legitimate patient. Those records should not be disclosed, however, to a caregiver, if for no other reason then not telling them what they don't need to know, one of the best rules I have ever found, but sillier things happen all the time.

 

 

Thanks

 

they can only work to your benefit if you are a legitimate patient 

 

Yes we our and where both legitimate patients but the case had nothing to do about that 

[Dr. Bob]

One thing that many seem to forget (especially with all this talk of Hippa and intimate medical records) is that under section 8 you must prove your case, using attorneys, expert witnesses, your records, etc.  The prosecution can challenge any or all aspects of the three prongs and it is up to the patient to prove their case.  You have violated section 4 and must justify why you shouldn't be convicted of it, and you have been charged with a crime.  It is up to you to justify your actions.

 

Things to consider, you must prove your condition, you must prove your dr/pt relationship, you must justify every gram and you must show every bit you had was for your own person use.  Every bit of evidence, including Greg's form, can be brought into play to keep you out of jail, and the more you are prepared to present the better.  But NOTHING you can bring to the hearing is a slam dunk in section 8, including the form.  It is all taken together and a decision is made (generally by people that don't particularly care for medical marijuana) and your fate is in their hands. 

 

Dr. Bob

[bustedinclintontwsp]

This makes no sense at all. Crack sales is not an excusable crime. marijuana sales is. So how is a cop creating a crime premeditating lying on one of the 3 prongs of section 8 PURPOSELY AND PREMEDITATIVELY making the defense unusable.

 

So in your view of section 8 marijuana is legal unless a cop premeditates a very specific scenario in which to stage a premeditated crime by using forgery and that is ok, but people who can't understand "a" patient and "the" patients are felons? Then I guess Supreme court justice cavanough should be a felon too.

THIS WHOLE LAW IS ENTRAPEMENT That's why sect 8 will blow up just like it did in Cali... I say no one registers and the system falls. Then they'ld have to give us answers.

 

PS through my whole case everyone says McQueen. Well Mcqueen was a civil case, not a send you to prison case, and the Sct said McQueen gets a section 8. They have not answered weather sect 8 covers McQueen'S ACTIONS yet! This is the reason all this crap is entrapment, call it what you want, I don't care anyone with a brain can see how they are slowly chipping this law to nothing. MMMA makes marijuana MORE PROSECUTBLE. Ever since they took away our rights. Did any voter in MI actually think that core constitutional things like INNOCENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY wouldn't apply to this. This is just proof that law makers suck and that lawyers don't care about anything but money. It would be real nice if some of these lawyers making the kind of money that makes your grow look like pocket change would get together and make a law or something. AND YOU TELL ME I AM NOT IN THE REAL WORLD? OMG what a joke, I am not in the real world I am in the ambiguous world. A world where police and lawyers lie while stacking cash and actually don't want these laws straightened out for personal financial gain, then they have a problem with someone trying to supply a sick person with meds, THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE LAW. I may be naive and not understand the court systems, but court systems my friend are not the real freakin world by any streach of the imagination.

 

I am starting to realize how many leo are here! WTF does a cop buying crack with a gun have to do with anything at all. Did the government pass a voter initated medical crack bill into office I am not aware of? Your speeding argument is ridiculous too. The state allows an ambulance to speed for medical reasons, and I'ld be willing to bet those reasons are all written in black and white in our law books. If they let an ambulance speed then say well you are illegal because you sped to the hospital, Because you sped for the purpose of getting good numbers on "A" employee evaluation. You didn't speed to protect "THE" patient.

 

ANYBODY ARGUING THIS IS ON LEO SIDE

 

Further, why worry about the rights of the cops possessing marijuana before the sick? So they decide when the marijuana becomes illegal? If the whole sect 8 defense hinges on what the cop is feeling or thinking or saying it should be illegal. Cops are full of doo doo and will have to answer for this KARMA soon. Maybe they will all get cancer and die.... uncomfortably....

I get where you are coming from but unfortunately I think your understanding of how things work in the real world falls short. I can be cruising along I-75 at 85 mph hour and LEO can drive 120 to catch me. It is OK for him to speed but not me. Similarly, an undercover LEO can buy crack at a crack house in the ordinary course of doing his job. He can walk away with a huge bag of crack but that doesn't make him a criminal. The fact that he has a pistol in his sock when making a controlled buy doesn't expose him to a felony firearm charge with a mandatory two-year minimum - let alone the minimum sentence one would get for a huge bag of crack.

You have to understand that ordinary law doesn't apply to LEO. A LEO can take your two ounces of cannabis as evidence, but this doesn't suddenly force him into a situation where he is in possession of a controlled substance and therefore on the wrong side of the law.

[bustedinclintontwsp]

so if carruthers or miller or any other entrapment cases come back in favor of the community would previous convictions for fake papers be thrown out? Would A felon have to file sect 8 defense or a relief or just get bent over again

[Highlander]

This makes no sense at all. Crack sales is not an excusable crime. marijuana sales is. All crimes are excusable.  In the USA we have a legal system where a defendant can be found guilty of a crime, but if he committed the crime unknowingly he and can prove it, he is not responsible for his action.  Example - maybe a Michigan patient who forgot about a bag of MMJ in his trunk weeks ago and accidentally took it to Ohio.   So how is a cop creating a crime premeditating lying on one of the 3 prongs of section 8 PURPOSELY AND PREMEDITATIVELY making the defense unusable.

 

So in your view of section 8 marijuana is legal unless a cop premeditates a very specific scenario in which to stage a premeditated crime by using forgery and that is ok, No.  I believe that Section 8 can protect a CG who transfers meds to a patient who is engaging in the transfer for the purpose of alleviating the patient's condition.  but people who can't understand "a" patient and "the" patients are felons? Where do you draw the line?   Should really smart people who understand a law be held to a higher standard, but if the defendant says "I didn't understand" then he doesn't have responsibility?  Then I guess Supreme court justice cavanough should be a felon too.

 

THIS WHOLE LAW IS ENTRAPEMENT That's why sect 8 will blow up just like it did in Cali... I say no one registers and the system falls. Then they'ld have to give us answers.

 

PS through my whole case everyone says McQueen. Well Mcqueen was a civil case, not a send you to prison case, and the Sct said McQueen gets a section 8. They have not answered weather sect 8 covers McQueen'S ACTIONS yet! This is the reason all this crap is entrapment, call it what you want, I don't care anyone with a brain can see how they are slowly chipping this law to nothing. MMMA makes marijuana MORE PROSECUTBLE.  How so?  Six years ago if you sold MJ to anyone, you'd be taking a big risk.  Today, if you are cautious and careful, you stand a chance at a free pass in the unlikely event you end up in the system.  I think what we see is that a whole lot of people thought that the new law offered more protections than it did.  There were many, many discussions on this very website going back five years where people said some pretty whacky stuff - like you don't need a driver's license anymore if you have your MMJ card because the law allows transportation, and of course p2p sales, and people saying that seeds a not regulated anymore (not understanding the difference between not counting for weight, vs. not being regulated)  I could go on with more examples.   .  Ever since they took away our rights. Did any voter in MI actually think that core constitutional things like INNOCENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY wouldn't apply to this. This is just proof that law makers suck and that lawyers don't care about anything but money. It would be real nice if some of these lawyers making the kind of money that makes your grow look like pocket change would get together and make a law or something. (I collected petitions back in 1999-2000 for the Personal Responsibility Amendment initiative. This was a legalization initiative started by and funded by Attorney Gregory Schmid).   AND YOU TELL ME I AM NOT IN THE REAL WORLD? OMG what a joke, I am not in the real world I am in the ambiguous world. A world where police and lawyers lie while stacking cash and actually don't want these laws straightened out for personal financial gain, then they have a problem with someone trying to supply a sick person with meds, The problem is that you say you are trying to supply a sick person with meds, but LEOs will say you are greedy.  We say LEO is greedy, and they say they are trying to help people.  Why not increase your credibility and just be up-front that you were trying to make a little extra money?  One of the real problems we have in the cannabis world is dispensary owners getting raided and then crying that all they were trying to do was help people.  To the non-MMJ user, this comes across poorly.    THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE LAW. I may be naive and not understand the court systems, but court systems my friend are not the real freakin world by any streach of the imagination.

 

I am starting to realize how many leo are here! WTF does a cop buying crack with a gun have to do with anything at all. Did the government pass a voter initated medical crack bill into office I am not aware of? Your speeding argument is ridiculous too. The state allows an ambulance to speed for medical reasons, and I'ld be willing to bet those reasons are all written in black and white in our law books. If they let an ambulance speed then say well you are illegal because you sped to the hospital, Because you sped for the purpose of getting good numbers on "A" employee evaluation. You didn't speed to protect "THE" patient.

 

ANYBODY ARGUING THIS IS ON LEO SIDE  I'm on the side where I recognized that the MMJ community needs to boost its image if we are to ever get anywhere.  I agree that LEOs and the courts want to chip away at the law.  We need more than just MMJ users on our side.  But when the non-User hears stuff like "All I was trying to do is help sick people," they are insulted.  This doesn't get us anywhere.

 

Further, why worry about the rights of the cops possessing marijuana before the sick? I'm not the least bit worried about a cop's right to possess MMJ.  So they decide when the marijuana becomes illegal? If the whole sect 8 defense hinges on what the cop is feeling or thinking or saying it should be illegal. Maybe Section 8 hinges on the concept of "know your patient."  Maybe that is kinda the whole point- that if you're going to sell MMJ outside of Section 4, it is your burden to prove you did your diligence.  There is no screening in Section 8.  Cops can get fake cards, and so can 16-year-olds and so can 50 year olds in perfect health.  So it isn't just UC cops you need to worry about.  So maybe a main point of Section 8 is that if you go out on a limb and sell to someone you can't be sure is a legit patient, then you bear some responsibility for the outcome if that person turns out to be a non-patient?  Don't just go around selling to just anyone.  Cops are full of doo doo and will have to answer for this KARMA soon. Maybe they will all get cancer and die.... uncomfortably....

[Highlander]

Just to clarify my points of discussion:

 

1.  Should a CG selling to a cop with fake paperwork/card be allowed a Section 8 defense?

2.  Should a CG selling to a non-cop non-patient with fake paperwork/card be allowed a Section 8 defense?

[GregS]

One thing that many seem to forget (especially with all this talk of Hippa and intimate medical records) is that under section 8 you must prove your case, using attorneys, expert witnesses, your records, etc.  The prosecution can challenge any or all aspects of the three prongs and it is up to the patient to prove their case.  You have violated section 4 and must justify why you shouldn't be convicted of it, and you have been charged with a crime.  It is up to you to justify your actions.

 

Things to consider, you must prove your condition, you must prove your dr/pt relationship, you must justify every gram and you must show every bit you had was for your own person use.  Every bit of evidence, including Greg's form, can be brought into play to keep you out of jail, and the more you are prepared to present the better.  But NOTHING you can bring to the hearing is a slam dunk in section 8, including the form.  It is all taken together and a decision is made (generally by people that don't particularly care for medical marijuana) and your fate is in their hands. 

 

Dr. Bob

Bob (holds head in hands and murmurs a curse). We know that there are no slam dunks in a courtroom, or rarely and they are not assured. Going to court is a crapshoot of sorts, and all parties are trying to get their shaved dice into the game. You appear to be becoming a little less strident, narcissistic, and arrogant, so we appreciate that. We hope you have learned some lessons and have been put more closely in your place. It is more than enough to lead us to suspect your medical acumen and credentials. Why do you not respond when we bring up our serious medical issues??? Why do you not pay for advertising and why do you continue to post regarding things you are not qualified for? We know you are not a patient or caregiver, and obviously no lawyer, but a profiteer at our expense who posts here to drive your business. Those posts are little more than especially disgusting spam, and I will continue to call you out on them any time you mention your business directly or by inference.

 

We know who you are and where you stand, which is not with us in carrying the law to a more complete end. We know that legislation is most certainly not assured to make that happen. If that were the case changes would have happened forty years ago. We are not all stupid children, which is how you address us, either by dysfunctional slight and insult and by representing yourself pompously and paternally to talk down to us about anything but your chosen field of practice. Many of the wrong headed things you have insisted on have been debunked, and we will not let you continue in them. Don't pretend to be a lawyer, and I won't pretend to be a fool.

 

You really should see a mental health professional. Narcissistic personality disorder is maladaptive. In your case it is obviously very advanced and should be treated.

Edited July 30, 2014 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

lol, you are a funny little man Greg.  Now run along, you are spinning off the handle again.

 

My qualifications are not in question, I just don't care to play your little games.  Have a nice day.

 

I don't pretend to be a lawyer.  You don't realize you are a fool.  I guess that is the difference between us.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited May 27, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[GregS]

id.

[Highlander]

Yes, and yes, because of this, from the ballot language:

The key term here is "unregistered patient." If the buyer isn't a patient then how does the ballot language apply? We end up back at the probable need for the CG to prove that his buyer is a "patient" if the CG is fighting for his freedom in court. The burden of proof lands on the seller in this case, and if the buyer is LEO, how on earth will the CG meet the burden of proof that he sold to a "patient?"

 

(i) "Qualifying patient" or "patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

(b) "Debilitating medical condition" means 1 or more of the following:

 

(1) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, or the treatment of these conditions.

 

(2) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces 1 or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

 

(3) Any other medical condition or its treatment approved by the department, as provided for in section 6(k).

 

The only answer I can see is that it would be up to the CG to prove that the buyer had been diagnosed with a debilitating condition at the time of the transaction. Otherwise, there is no "patient," as defined in the act.

 

(h) "Primary caregiver" or "caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use 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.

 

You can only be considered a CG if the "buyer" meets the definition of " patient." There is no such thing as a CG to a non-patient. So when someone sells to a person who isn't a patient as defined in the MMMA, then the seller can't possibly be considered a CG to that patient. If he isn't a CG, then he doesn't meet the section 8 requirements or the ballot language. Unfortunately, the law throws him into the category of "some guy selling weed."

[GregS]

The key term here is "unregistered patient." If the buyer isn't a patient then how does the ballot language apply? We end up back at the probable need for the CG to prove that his buyer is a "patient" if the CG is fighting for his freedom in court. The burden of proof lands on the seller in this case, and if the buyer is LEO, how on earth will the CG meet the burden of proof that he sold to a "patient?"

 

(i) "Qualifying patient" or "patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

(b) "Debilitating medical condition" means 1 or more of the following:

 

(1) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, or the treatment of these conditions.

 

(2) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces 1 or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

 

(3) Any other medical condition or its treatment approved by the department, as provided for in section 6(k).

 

The only answer I can see is that it would be up to the CG to prove that the buyer had been diagnosed with a debilitating condition at the time of the transaction. Otherwise, there is no "patient," as defined in the act.

 

(h) "Primary caregiver" or "caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use 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.

 

You can only be considered a CG if the "buyer" meets the definition of " patient." There is no such thing as a CG to a non-patient. So when someone sells to a person who isn't a patient as defined in the MMMA, then the seller can't possibly be considered a CG to that patient. If he isn't a CG, then he doesn't meet the section 8 requirements or the ballot language. Unfortunately, the law throws him into the category of "some guy selling weed."

Again Highlander, the proffered pt/cg agreement/contract requires that the purchaser swears to being a patient in that duly executed document along with patient provided and notarized documentation that swears a bona fide rec has been made. It further establishes the seller as the caregiver using almost the entire definition you quote.

Edited June 4, 2014 by GregS