Jump to content

Caregiver To Caregiver To Patient Transfers


hollywood420
 Share

Recommended Posts

The law says that you can't transfer to anyone your not connected to through the MMMJ. Well as caregivers and patients we are all connected through the mmmj. Obviously patient to patient transfer wouldn't be covered under sec 4. But caregiver to caregiver to patient transfers should be covered under sec 4. As caregivers we are allowed to make compensation for expenses incurred while taking care of a qualified patient(s) plants. Growing is expensive and it takes a lot of time when done to insure quality meds we being cultivated for your qualifying patients. Most qualifying patients are poor and can't afford med that often. Why should I as a caregiver not be allowed to give a qualifying patent or caregiver meds if they are in need for reasonable donations to cover expenses. Like I said earlier all card holders are connected through the MMMJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem lies in the underlying assumption, "Well as caregivers and patients we are all connected through the mmmj."

 

You have to understand some subtleties of statutory interpretation rules.  One rule is that an interpretation cannot render a word or phrase meaningless.

 

If every patient and CG was automatically connected simply because they are part of the same network, consider the following from Section 4:

 

"for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process"

 

"to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process" would be meaningless.  There would be no need to specify, "connected through the department's registration process."  Therefore, one has to conclude that "connected through the department's registration process" is a qualifier that means something other than "all cardholders are connected."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law says that you can't transfer to anyone your not connected to through the MMMJ. Well as caregivers and patients we are all connected through the mmmj. Obviously patient to patient transfer wouldn't be covered under sec 4. But caregiver to caregiver to patient transfers should be covered under sec 4. As caregivers we are allowed to make compensation for expenses incurred while taking care of a qualified patient(s) plants. Growing is expensive and it takes a lot of time when done to insure quality meds we being cultivated for your qualifying patients. Most qualifying patients are poor and can't afford med that often. Why should I as a caregiver not be allowed to give a qualifying patent or caregiver meds if they are in need for reasonable donations to cover expenses. Like I said earlier all card holders are connected through the MMMJ

a c.g is only connected to a pt if the c.g has a card that says they maintain grow rights to that pt's plants, they can only have 5 pts and them selves to grow for and have cured usable mm, they can have upto 2.5 oz for each pt on hand, they can have 12 plants for each 5 pt's and them selves,

 

we are not all connected, Im a pt, I have a pt card, Im a pt with a c.g I have a pt card with my c.g's name and info on the back, making us connected thru the state registry, I am a c.g I have a pt, I can grow that pt's 12 plants, I can have 2.5 useable on hand for that pt and pt can have 2.5 usable with them, so me as a pt/cg and a c.g/pt I can have 12 plants for my 1 pt, I can have 2.5 oz's for that pt, the pt can have 2.5 oz's no plants, so that means I can have 12 plants at my grow, and 7.5 useable, my c.g can have 2.5 for me and 12 plants,

 

You have to be registered to the pt or c.g in order for the c.g to legaly be able to provide mm for thier pt, pt2pt is not legal, but the pt recieving the mm is allowed to get mm from anywhere, the person distributing to the pt has to be connected thru the registry directly to a pt to supply them legaly and not have to use the a.d!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law says that you can't transfer to anyone your not connected to through the MMMJ. Well as caregivers and patients we are all connected through the mmmj. Obviously patient to patient transfer wouldn't be covered under sec 4. But caregiver to caregiver to patient transfers should be covered under sec 4. As caregivers we are allowed to make compensation for expenses incurred while taking care of a qualified patient(s) plants. Growing is expensive and it takes a lot of time when done to insure quality meds we being cultivated for your qualifying patients. Most qualifying patients are poor and can't afford med that often. Why should I as a caregiver not be allowed to give a qualifying patent or caregiver meds if they are in need for reasonable donations to cover expenses. Like I said earlier all card holders are connected through the MMMJ

First off there are no donations.  The Supreme Court of Michigan has ruled that sales are protected under the premise of medical use. 

 

If you wish to change the law, by all means welcome aboard. You will find many archived discussions that speak to your concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off there are no donations.  The Supreme Court of Michigan has ruled that sales are protected under the premise of medical use. 

 

If you wish to change the law, by all means welcome aboard. You will find many archived discussions that speak to your concerns.

 

Thanks for pointing that out.  I'm kinda sick of people using the term "donation" and thinking it somehow changes the actual quid pro quo nature of the transaction.  When one exchanges a product for a specified price, it is a sale. 

 

"Donation" per Webster:

 

a :  the making of a gift especially to a charity or public institution

 

b :  a free contribution :  gift

 

"Sale" per Webster:

 

the act of selling; specifically :  the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price

 

 

I think using the word "donation" so prevalently in the world of MMJ makes us look bad, as if we're being obtuse or trying to trick people.  It reminds me of a guy in high school who said to me, "I'm not stealing.  I'm just borrowing with no intention of returning it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing that out.  I'm kinda sick of people using the term "donation" and thinking it somehow changes the actual quid pro quo nature of the transaction.  When one exchanges a product for a specified price, it is a sale. 

 

"Donation" per Webster:

 

a :  the making of a gift especially to a charity or public institution

 

b :  a free contribution :  gift

 

"Sale" per Webster:

 

the act of selling; specifically :  the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price

 

 

I think using the word "donation" so prevalently in the world of MMJ makes us look bad, as if we're being obtuse or trying to trick people.  It reminds me of a guy in high school who said to me, "I'm not stealing.  I'm just borrowing with no intention of returning it."

It is like fingernails on a chalk board when used like this as far as I'm concerned. Disingenuous, it does not reflect well on the user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the supreme court ruled that cg2cg was not protected by section 4 because the two cg's were not connected.

 

also the cg daisy chain of cg1 > pt1 > cg2 is also not protected because the transfer from cg1>pt1 is not for the pt1's relief but for cg2

 

 

which unfortunately means any parent caregivers of sick kids cannot find anyone to legally transfer to them.

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is like fingernails on a chalk board when used like this as far as I'm concerned. Disingenuous, it does not reflect well on the user.

 

Like oils not being an obvious "preparation thereof".

 

If a euphemism is helping medical marijuana users access medicine then I will enjoy the brief time legalese benefits the targets of the US Government's War on its citizens.

 

It's not like a "cute phrase" has ever stopped a battering ram and a narcotics interdiction unit.

 

I would suggest it is wishful thinking the term "donation" has any impact on whether or not the dispensaries will open for business again tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like oils not being an obvious "preparation thereof".

 

If a euphemism is helping medical marijuana users access medicine then I will enjoy the brief time legalese benefits the targets of the US Government's War on its citizens.

 

It's not like a "cute phrase" has ever stopped a battering ram and a narcotics interdiction unit.

 

I would suggest it is wishful thinking the term "donation" has any impact on whether or not the dispensaries will open for business again tomorrow.

My concern is that a cute phrase won't stop the battering ram. As I recall, the use of the term "donation" arose years ago because while it was bad to give marijuana for free, it was really bad to sell it. That is still somewhat true under the MMMA. If you sell MJ to someone who isn't allowed to use MJ, you'd be possibly charged with an additional two-year felony as provided in the MMMA, that's beyond the felony delivery charge. So if a carded person thinks he can donate meds to a recreational user and have the rec user donate money to him, and thereby avoid a "sale," then the proliferation of the word "donation" would have done him a disservice.

 

Also, from what I have seen, a lot of patients and CGs I've talked to or read their on-line posts think that pt2pt or CG2CG transfers are ok as long as it isn't a sale. They don't know that the SC ruled that it's ok for a CG to sell meds to his carded patient and the SC also more or less indicated that there is no difference between a p2p sale and a p2p gift.

 

My entire point can be summed up as that use of the term "donation" might (probably does) lead the less informed to engage in actions not protected by the MMMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My entire point can be summed up as that use of the term "donation" might (probably does) lead the less informed to engage in actions not protected by the MMMA.

 

The risk as a patient purchaser is nil. Anyone transferring marihuana to a person not registered to them is in violation of the Act.

 

Your concern would be someone going to a dispensary, seeing them using "Donation" having the light bulb go off for them and they turn around offer their medical marijuana to others for a "donation" because "The Dispensary does." That is a valid argument. Granting that argument and recognizing there may be some who are harmed from the "misinformation" I still contend the overall use of the word "donation", if it is preventing immediate closure because the word "sale" isn't used, is beneficial.

 

Deriding wordplay is legitimate. 90% of the law used to prosecute you is wordplay though. Look at how damaging the word "Resin" was to Carruthers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why doesn't a dispensary have to follow the rule of supplying only the five patients registered directly , but caregiver do? who has to be juiced to allow this?

 

Great question. Is that what it is? I wouldn't be surprised but I honestly have no clue. I wonder this in the rural communities the most. That would be scary as hell. Even going to it, like the porn shops, people know who drives what.

 

Personal guess, it is like hockey: An infraction is only a penalty when called. Not all infractions are penalized.

 

This makes me think of an article I read on Prohibition and its ultimate demise in the 1930's because juries refused to find alcohol suppliers and those in possession of it guilty. We see it today with judges not letting juries hear the cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like oils not being an obvious "preparation thereof".

 

If a euphemism is helping medical marijuana users access medicine then I will enjoy the brief time legalese benefits the targets of the US Government's War on its citizens.

 

It's not like a "cute phrase" has ever stopped a battering ram and a narcotics interdiction unit.

 

I would suggest it is wishful thinking the term "donation" has any impact on whether or not the dispensaries will open for business again tomorrow.

I'm talking about the allusion to the notion that the use of the word "donation" is not appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about the allusion to the notion that the use of the word "donation" is not appropriate.

 

I'm saying; for all the cardholder stones that get busted in a day "donation" works for me if it is a loophole that keeps the doors open for today's "grey market provisioning centers" in communities that are sympathetic to the needs of medical marijuana card holders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eloquent retort and the same thing hundreds of people would say right back to you as you opine on limiting access for medical marijuana patients. I like their approach much more than yours and those of your mentality. I'm glad they are winning.

Sorry, loop holes are weak substitutes for the real deal and only get people into trouble. If you like that answer better than fuk that then enjoy the sugar coating. The meaning is the same. Loop holes have nothing in common with 'winning'. They have a lot to do with slowly losing because you believe in fairy tales(loopholes). Loop holes are like pot holes, they always cause trouble and will get filled in if they are big enough. NEVER depend on a loop hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

 

Section 4.

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

Sec4(e) states very clearly care givers can receive compensation from " A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT" it does not dictate that that patient has to be your patient. Again most out there can't afford to grow their own meds and need access. Why as caregivers should we not be allowed to help those in need. It says in black and white. "A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, loop holes are weak substitutes for the real deal and only get people into trouble. If you like that answer better than fuk that then enjoy the sugar coating. The meaning is the same. Loop holes have nothing in common with 'winning'. They have a lot to do with slowly losing because you believe in fairy tales(loopholes). Loop holes are like pot holes, they always cause trouble and will get filled in if they are big enough. NEVER depend on a loop hole.

 

Thanks for the apology.

 

I enjoy the sugar coating very much, thank you.

 

As to the rest of your meaningless conjecture - you're entitled to your opinion and entitled to be wrong as often as you like. The proof of your error is illustrated hundreds of times over in Wayne County so there is no point in me arguing. It is you who must fight reality to maintain the fairy tale.

 

I listened to a Republican last night with a more compassionate approach to providing access to medical marijuana than you and your ilk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the apology.

 

I enjoy the sugar coating very much, thank you.

 

As to the rest of your meaningless conjecture - you're entitled to your opinion and entitled to be wrong as often as you like. The proof of your error is illustrated hundreds of times over in Wayne County so there is no point in me arguing. It is you who must fight reality to maintain the fairy tale.

 

I listened to a Republican last night with a more compassionate approach to providing access to medical marijuana than you and your ilk.

Sure you did. He was lying really well then. I tell it like it is because that's what I do. Be careful of liars with sweet words telling you what you want to hear that do not even make any sense in reality. Be better at sorting through the BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if it is a loophole that keeps the doors open for now, but leads to their conviction later?

 

Is this really what patients are asking of caregivers? To risk a felony to provide them accessible medicine at a premium price? I think not; most do not understand fully the risk they are taking, nor asking others to take.

 

The first question is a GREAT ONE! I would love to sit down and talk to each owner and understand WHY they are doing what they do. Is it money? Is it access? Is it both? The people working there. I would love to see it legitimized so no one risks jail for helping people.

 

Patients are not asking this of their caregivers I think. The current "provisioning centers" are there of their own accord, no patients "forced" them to take the chance they do every minute of every day. Is there cause noble or greedy? Another great question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you did. He was lying really well then. I tell it like it is because that's what I do. Be careful of liars with sweet words telling you what you want to hear that do not even make any sense in reality. Be better at sorting through the BS.

 

I think your version of "reality" is yours. I think you are terrible at sorting through the BS but I would never deign to tell you what to do. That is a major difference between us and our philosophical approach in life. You think your intelligence means you can tell everyone else what to do because they aren't as super-smart as you. I feel my intelligence is an obligation to understand why the less-informed appear that way to me. To each their own and you are obviously committed to your tact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...