Can Police Use A ‘Borrowed’ Marijuana Card?

[GregS]

As a seller I am still not seeing it being plainly written as a protection. If it was then dispensaries would be legal under Section 8 defense as they assist a card holding patient with the "medical use" of marihuana. We saw elsewhere that McQueen defines asymetrical protections for sellers and medical patient purchasers. I'm not claiming to have an answer I just enjoy the conversation.

 

I don't think voter intent has anything to do with what LEO will do to people. Not trying to be radical just one person's observation.

If and when you or I enter into an agreement to act as caregiver to a patient whose physician has stated..., that relationship protects us, with or without registration. I think it farce to believe that verbal agreeement is adequate for this purpose, and for that reason I recommend it be memorialized in print. Documents spelling out the necessary particulars can establish that relationship to a reasonable degree, and they have sometimes been allowed into evidence, so I've been told. Sec. 4 is the smart way to go. I will not argue otherwise. Further protection is good to have inasmuch as there are defendants who were entirely compliant with sec. 4 and were still prosecuted, at which point sec. 8 becomes huge because sec.4 protections had been thrown out the window.

 

Sec. 8 evidentiary matters are to be considered in Hartwick/Tuttle. That could very well clarify if and how these kinds of things apply, or not.

Edited January 8, 2015 by GregS

[trichcycler]

the problem without registration is the validation of a physicians recommendation and/or program participation and eligibility. Without the stat registration process we are unable to complete these necessary steps that offer us said protections imo. 

[Restorium2]

the problem without registration is the validation of a physicians recommendation and/or program participation and eligibility. Without the stat registration process we are unable to complete these necessary steps that offer us said protections imo. 

The ballot language did say that there were supposed to be protections for the unregistered. So these protections are there .... somewhere.... needing to be 'unlocked'.

[Restorium2]

As a seller I am still not seeing it being plainly written as a protection. If it was then dispensaries would be legal under Section 8 defense as they assist a card holding patient with the "medical use" of marihuana. We saw elsewhere that McQueen defines asymetrical protections for sellers and medical patient purchasers. I'm not claiming to have an answer I just enjoy the conversation.

 

I don't think voter intent has anything to do with what LEO will do to people. Not trying to be radical just one person's observation.

A section 8 is going to be difficult to prove because you have to do it in front of a judge and all your hoops must be cleanly jumped through. No do overs.

 

So it might be worth it to protect multiple transfers over a long period of time 'section 8 style' if you have a good attorney who doesn't charge a lot. But it's not going to be a 'good business model' to have to prove a section 8 for every customer, every sale. It's actually laughable in my opinion. Every sale potentially having a legal fee of a section 8 is not going to be profitable. 

[bobandtorey]

The ballot language did say that there were supposed to be protections for the unregistered. So these protections are there .... somewhere.... needing to be 'unlocked'.

We sure did try

[Restorium2]

We sure did try

Which brings up the point that a judge gets to decide a section 8. He can say NO because he is the judge. Just say NO. Many things hang on 'which judge you get' here in Michigan. 

[YesMichigan]

The ballot language did say that there were supposed to be protections for the unregistered. So these protections are there .... somewhere.... needing to be 'unlocked'.

 

This is exactly how I feel. The words are there they are just being intentionally misread to subvert the will of the people to continue the illegal charade perpetuated by megalomaniacs.

 

"Many things hang on 'which judge you get' here in Michigan." not to mention the cop you get when you're out in the world. You're on fire today.

 

Makes me think about criminal informants in our region. Does it seem like there are more of them than before? I'll admit to a lack of exposure over the years, really only heard about them in cocaine cases and the like. Sure does sound like home grows are being compromised by CI's that LEO is getting from street arrests. Is that me reading in too much or do others see it as a reality of the new law?

[trichcycler]

right on!

It's a delegation of duties at the tax payers expense. "if you can't beat 'em join 'em "

bad guys pretending to be good guys, or good guys pretending to be bad ones?  whats the difference today?

[YesMichigan]

It's a game to them.

 

Reminds me of the very obscure Pink Floyd song "When the Tigers broke free"

 

"And the Anzio bridgehead
Was held for the price
Of a few hundred ordinary lives."

 

We are the ordinary lives in this war...

[GregS]

the problem without registration is the validation of a physicians recommendation and/or program participation and eligibility. Without the stat registration process we are unable to complete these necessary steps that offer us said protections imo. 

Have you read the supporting documents linked to at the bottom of the contract I posted? You will please note it is a necessary requirement to have either card or copies of a physician's statement. Copies are required in the agreement between the parties. That you have proved that a physician has stated, you have met that requirement.

[GregS]

The ballot language did say that there were supposed to be protections for the unregistered. So these protections are there .... somewhere.... needing to be 'unlocked'.

What is in sec. 8 that is somehow locked? More to the point, it can be said that judges play fast and loose with it. I think it is clear enough and I am anxious to see how the Supreme Court rules on the present issues.

 

What are your thoughts on that? What evidentiary issues might be resolved and how?

.

[trichcycler]

Have you read the supporting documents linked to at the bottom of the contract I posted? You will please note it is a necessary requirement to have either card or copies of a physician's statement. Copies are required in the agreement between the parties. That you have proved that a physician has stated, you have met that requirement.

I definitely have. This would prove that you visited a person claiming to be qualified as a physician. This does not prove the validity of the physicians statement I think. I personally know of someone who's card was nullified until a different doctor qualified them, according to the state. The physician lacked the necessary qualifications to do so according to the state. Luckily it was caught by the state before an arrest requiring the proof at that time, only to fail the test in court. Another concern may be a patient/grower claiming to be felon free, but not, or fake identification, false doctor recommendations too.

 

If those concerns are addressed the plan may be fine. I truly believe the state feels it MUST know the location of each plant growing, connected to an address and a name. We hear of people doing things according to the state and still getting hassled in court. Imagine coupling the issue with this matter.

[bobandtorey]

But someone can be homeless and still grow cannabis i guess if they have a  cardboard Box big enough 

[GregS]

I definitely have. This would prove that you visited a person claiming to be qualified as a physician. This does not prove the validity of the physicians statement I think. I personally know of someone who's card was nullified until a different doctor qualified them, according to the state. The physician lacked the necessary qualifications to do so according to the state. Luckily it was caught by the state before an arrest requiring the proof at that time, only to fail the test in court. Another concern may be a patient/grower claiming to be felon free, but not, or fake identification, false doctor recommendations too.

 

If those concerns are addressed the plan may be fine. I truly believe the state feels it MUST know the location of each plant growing, connected to an address and a name. We hear of people doing things according to the state and still getting hassled in court. Imagine coupling the issue with this matter.

You're serious??? The requirements are that the physician offers up his/her state ID number. What more can a patient do toward due diligence?? Any party who misrepresents facts to another is practicing fraud.

 

The State might well want those concessions, but they are not provided for in the law. Fuk 'em.

Edited January 9, 2015 by GregS

[trichcycler]

I am serious. the state checked the doctors credentials, and I could easily assume they do in each case. Like the criminal background check, valid identification.

 

If a seller in court was defrauded by a dishonest patient aspiring to gain access to marijuana, and only the exchange of a written agreement was presented in lieu of the registration system in place do you think the Judge will favor the seller for his reluctance to use the already in place system of registration to grow and sell mj ?

 

ps-your paper has been published before I was a member here, and came with heated debate. I do not wish to debate the efficacy of the forms legal protections, as it most likely has not been tested yet in court. Since you brought it up though, I felt these were obvious issues, perhaps already remedied/considered by you. I'm sorry for the rehash if you have already considered these issues.

[Restorium2]

In the carding process, the State doesn't assure a caregiver that a patient is not defrauding either. Just that their paperwork looks to be  in order. You still can get a card challenged in court and found it was acquired fraudulently, same as if you were in court for a section 8 protection. I really don't see the State doing much to prevent fraud at all, just typos. If someone wanted to defraud and has a decent level of intelligence, knows the system, they could defraud the card process fairly easily. About the only thing they couldn't fake is the caregiver felon check, the doctor number check, and their ID. 

[trichcycler]

About the only thing they couldn't fake is the caregiver felon check, the doctor number check, and their ID.

exactly.

 

I'd rather the state be defrauded than me in a marijuana case. If all the steps of registration were followed, the court knows I do not have obligation or need to validate criminal background checks, doctor numbers, or state identification. If those procedures were not followed I believe the onus would be prescribed to me.

 

When participating in the MMMP I believe following the directions of registration is a safer trek than not. Especially when growing marijuana to sell to other people. I don't know anyone following the state instructions in our Act and being hassled, but I do know of ones inventing their own rules and being arrested. The rules, maybe intrusive, are very easy to follow.

 

I'll take the advice of the DTF agent at city hall when he looked at people in the room and said "I know most of you, busted you 25 years ago. Just follow the rules and nobody will see me again". so far so good, for everyone I've met personally. Maybe a demographic thing, I dunno.

[Restorium2]

exactly.

 

I'd rather the state be defrauded than me in a marijuana case. If all the steps of registration were followed, the court knows I do not have obligation or need to validate criminal background checks, doctor numbers, or state identification. If those procedures were not followed I believe the onus would be prescribed to me.

 

When participating in the MMMP I believe following the directions of registration is a safer trek than not. Especially when growing marijuana to sell to other people. I don't know anyone following the state instructions in our Act and being hassled, but I do know of ones inventing their own rules and being arrested. The rules, maybe intrusive, are very easy to follow.

 

I'll take the advice of the DTF agent at city hall when he looked at people in the room and said "I know most of you, busted you 25 years ago. Just follow the rules and nobody will see me again". so far so good, for everyone I've met personally. Maybe a demographic thing, I dunno.

The caregiver felon check would just be 'checking yourself'. You can find out if a doctor's number is valid very easily. And it's easy to look at a patients drivers license. All things you should be doing anyway. So the State is not really providing you any extra protection unless you don't want to check your own record, the doctor number, and look at your patient's State ID. 

[trichcycler]

you are welcome to deviate from state instructions. be safe.

I will however advise to follow state instructions for best results.

Edited January 9, 2015 by grassmatch

[Restorium2]

you are welcome to deviate from state instructions. be safe.

I will however advise to follow state instructions for best results.

Again grassmatch, this isn't about you or I, or what we do. It's about how things work for everyone reading. All patients and caregiviers. 

[Restorium2]

Per State Instructions;  The State doesn't instruct you 'To get a card', they instruct you how to fill out their paperwork properly.

[Restorium2]

The courts instruct us how to be a legal patient and caregiver. Like advising you need to have seen a doctor BEFORE you can be a legal patient.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Restorium2

[trichcycler]

..and how to submit it, and if you will be accepted into the state program, offered certain protections, or denied.

 

I will continue to advise patients to follow state instructions as written for best results. Anything less is questionable.

[trichcycler]

like I said, you are free to advise and ill advise your patients and associates. I will follow those rules because it has worked for everyone I know, who continue to enjoy the freedoms and protections for growing their own medicine. The people I know that are arrested and raided often state they were following the law too I recall. But sure enough, when we inspect the details we often find issue with growing 100's of plants, or selling to every carded buyer, or, or. NOT following the rules as written often.

[Restorium2]

..and how to submit it, and if you will be accepted into the state program, offered certain protections, or denied.

 

I will continue to advise patients to follow state instructions as written for best results. Anything less is questionable.

The person who decides what power a card has is your prosecutor. He can accept it at face value or make you prove every single thing you already told the State, sort of like a section 8 defense. And you still have to prove medical use even if you are a legal patient. The card is far from bulletproof protection. It only protects you if the officials checking it want it to, basically.