Jump to content
hollywood420

Caregiver To Caregiver To Patient Transfers

Recommended Posts

For that matter, how can someone start a paragraph with this quote by the bill sponsor and somehow twist it around to say that the provisioning centers NEED home grows?

 

“By not voting for the dispensary bill, you’re saying it’s OK to have people growing their own in communities,” Callton told the Free Press. In actuality, when 63% of Michiganders voted for the MMA in 2008 they approved growing in their own communities. Callton’s Provisioning Centers Act is dependent upon caregiver cultivation of marijuana, which for five years has been primarily accomplished in gardens located in residential districts across the state. At the high point, more than 50,000 caregivers and 120,000 patients were licensed to grow cannabis in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“By not voting for the dispensary bill, you’re saying it’s OK to have people growing their own in communities,” Callton told the Free Press. 

 

is in the article by rick thompson that you linked to and quoted from.

 

I highlighted it. Not sure your point here. I quoted it so Restorium's paraphrase wouldn't be accepted as "fact". The continuation of the quotation and Matt Abel's comment I felt provided further context.

 

 

For that matter, how can someone start a paragraph with this quote by the bill sponsor and somehow twist it around to say that the provisioning centers NEED home grows?

 

“By not voting for the dispensary bill, you’re saying it’s OK to have people growing their own in communities,” Callton told the Free Press. In actuality, when 63% of Michiganders voted for the MMA in 2008 they approved growing in their own communities. Callton’s Provisioning Centers Act is dependent upon caregiver cultivation of marijuana, which for five years has been primarily accomplished in gardens located in residential districts across the state. At the high point, more than 50,000 caregivers and 120,000 patients were licensed to grow cannabis in the state.

 

I did provide the link to the article, not sure if your other comment was in regards to that. I always link my articles.

 

There is no "twisting" if his paraphrase of "no homegrows" as you accept it is gospel then him saying he needs Caregiver cultivation to supply Provisioning Centers is also gospel. You appear to only accept dogmatic thought when it advances your position.

 

It isn't a loophole. A loophole is a narrow opening in a law that you can sneak through safely. "Donation" is simply a poor and feeble attempt to define an action for something other than what it is. It isn't a loophole. It is a noose.

 

It isn't a "poor or feeble" attempt at anything because thousands are getting medicine today through it. Would they be closed down if they just called them "Sales" instead of "Donations"? I honestly don't know, I do know there was a claim that the Pharmaceutical lobby objected to the term "Dispensary" so wordplay is a very real thing.

 

I consider it very provincial to tell patients they can't have good caregivers. I'm all about Freedom and access to relief. Not a popular position here, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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.

Legislations definitions.

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.

 

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

 

Again why is it against the law for us to help patients in need. This serious problem needs addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YesMichigan Quote;

There is no "twisting" if his paraphrase of "no homegrows" as you accept it is gospel then him saying he needs Caregiver cultivation to supply Provisioning Centers is also gospel. You appear to only accept dogmatic thought when it advances your position.

 

Only the NO HOMEGROWS are his words. The rest is article fluff by the author that took a 'misdirection' away from the actual quote. The only real part are the words of the bill sponsor as he bargains with our grow rights PLAINLY, in plain English, for the press. They are his words given freely, expressed well, and obviously bargaining with home grow priviledges in our communities, the lifeblood of our whole movement (in my opinion). Our only diamond in a field of rocks. He bargains with it like it's as easy as pie to give up Home Grows In Communities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think that LEOs think "Oh, the dispensary is taking donations rather than making sales - I guess we can't bust them?"

 

It isn't a "poor or feeble" attempt at anything because thousands are getting medicine today through it. Would they be closed down if they just called them "Sales" instead of "Donations"? I honestly don't know, I do know there was a claim that the Pharmaceutical lobby objected to the term "Dispensary" so wordplay is a very real thing.

 

I consider it very provincial to tell patients they can't have good caregivers. I'm all about Freedom and access to relief. Not a popular position here, I know.

 

Wordplay isn't a real thing.  I guess that's where we'll have to disagree.  Wordplay is a safety net made of sewing thread.  It looks good to some people from a distance, but if you are forced to rely on it, it doesn't work.  It doesn't matter is the pharmaceutical lobby objected to the term "dispensary."  People are not getting busted for their terminology.  They are getting busted for their actions. 

 

Exactly how is using the term "donation" helping dispensaries or CGs transferring to more than five patients stay within the law?

 

I'll remind you that under the MMMA, there is no difference between a CG giving MMJ away for free to 100 patients and a CG "selling" to or "accepting donations" from 100 patients.  Call it a gift, a donation, or a sale.  It is all the same under the MMMA.  Section 4 doesn't provide protection for a CG to transfer to patient #6.  It doesn't matter what the parameters of that transfer are or what you name it.  All that matters is what actually happened.

 

Using the term "donation" leads the less informed people think it is OK to transfer to more than five patients.  You helped make my point when you called it a loophole.  So someone reading your posts would be lead to believe that a "donation" is a way to beat the system.  That's what a loophole is - a way to safely beat the system.  Calling a transfer a "donation" won't beat the system.  It just leads more people to the fire.

 

Maybe you remember back in the 1980s, people were dipping smelt and selling them on the side of the road, but it was against the law to sell smelt.  So some people thought they'd be clever and sell the bucket and give the smelt away for free.  It didn't work.  Smoke and mirrors didn't work with "free smelt" and it won't work with cannabis transfers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YesMichigan Quote;

 

It isn't a "poor or feeble" attempt at anything because thousands are getting medicine today through it. Would they be closed down if they just called them "Sales" instead of "Donations"? I honestly don't know, I do know there was a claim that the Pharmaceutical lobby objected to the term "Dispensary" so wordplay is a very real thing.

 

You are wrong. The reason they are open is because of the way a case has to be made to convict them, not word play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YesMichigan,

We are taking the time to teach you. To fill in the holes in your knowledge. We are not bragging or guessing, just providing a service because of what we have witnesses. This is not a debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YesMichigan Quote;

 

It isn't a "poor or feeble" attempt at anything because thousands are getting medicine today through it. Would they be closed down if they just called them "Sales" instead of "Donations"? I honestly don't know, I do know there was a claim that the Pharmaceutical lobby objected to the term "Dispensary" so wordplay is a very real thing.

 

You are wrong. The reason they are open is because of the way a case has to be made to convict them, not word play.

 

I agree almost completely. I will completely agree when they take the signs down and put up the one that says "Sale price".

 

This is the most salient point you raise and I like the direction you take using it. It is the moment we switch places, as I read the law today there is a case to convict and I would like to read your reasoning why you think there isn't. Save for that reason "wordplay" does appear to stand in the way. Given the Supreme Court ruling I chalk their continued existence to permissive law enforcement and nothing else. The word "donation" used in this manner does look like a "feeble" attempt but in the political arena it is a "goodwill" gesture to not rub a term they know LEO despises "sales".

 

It is like "My Cousin Vinny" when he wears the tuxedo in to the court room:

 

Vinny Gambini: So it's either wear the leather jacket, which I know you hate, or this. So, I wore this ridiculous thing for you.

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Are you on drugs?

Vinny Gambini: No. I don't do drugs.

Judge Chamberlain Haller: I don't like your attitude.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104952/quotes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YesMichigan,

We are taking the time to teach you. To fill in the holes in your knowledge. We are not bragging or guessing, just providing a service because of what we have witnesses. This is not a debate. 

 

I am taking the time to teach you. To illustrate the holes in your understanding and compassion. I'm not bragging just providing a service because of what I have witnessed.

 

It is certainly not a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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.

Legislations definitions.

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.

 

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

 

Again why is it against the law for us to help patients in need. This serious problem needs addressed.

 

It isn't against the law to help patients in need.  You can safely help five patients.  Here is why you are not protected for helping the sixth patient:

 

4(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act.

 

You can't just cherry-pick parts of the law that support your wish and disregard the parts that don't support your wish.  Here is a good example.  Take this from Section 4, "A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest"

 

If you look only at that phrase, you'd think that a patient, by virtue of being a patient, is immune from any arrest.  But you have to take every part of the law in context with the rest of the law.  Section 4e doesn't stand alone.  The definition of "medical use" doesn't stand alone.

 

Remember when Donald Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have - not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

 

We MMJ folks are at "war" and we went to war with the law we have, not the law we might want or wish to have at a later time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to start with how the cases against the dispensaries have been made to understand how whole scenario works. You have to study all the cases and how they went to know why dispensaries are open now even though they are illegal. For one thing they have found that they can't make a patient testify that they bought from a dispensary. We watched this stuff unfold so we know all about it. We have heard prosecutor tell us why it's hard to shut a dispensary down and why they don't. It doesn't have a thing to do with 'wordplay'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am taking the time to teach you. To illustrate the holes in your understanding and compassion. I'm not bragging just providing a service because of what I have witnessed.

 

It is certainly not a debate.

Compassion has nothing to do with it. What have you learned that I don't know about? I'm listening....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 The word "donation" used in this manner does look like a "feeble" attempt but in the political arena it is a "goodwill" gesture to not rub a term they know LEO despises "sales".

 

 

I'd like to understand a little more how this goodwill thing works with LEO.  We know that LEOs have contacted sellers on Craigslist, set up a buy with fake cards, and busted them.  I can't imagine LEOs trolling Craigslist ads looking for sellers and seeing someone asking for "donations" and then deciding to give the guy a break.  I just don't see that playing out in the real world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am taking the time to teach you. To illustrate the holes in your understanding and compassion. I'm not bragging just providing a service because of what I have witnessed.

 

It is certainly not a debate.

Which attorney has advised you to say 'donation' ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to understand a little more how this goodwill thing works with LEO.  We know that LEOs have contacted sellers on Craigslist, set up a buy with fake cards, and busted them.  I can't imagine LEOs trolling Craigslist ads looking for sellers and seeing someone asking for "donations" and then deciding to give the guy a break.  I just don't see that playing out in the real world. 

 

The "goodwill" reference is that the dispensary doesn't call it a "Sale". It is like saying "Frack" when everyone knows you said "flower", "Frack" is considered "more polite" even though it conveys the exact same meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "goodwill" reference is that the dispensary doesn't call it a "Sale". It is like saying "Frack" when everyone knows you said "flower", "Frack" is considered "more polite" even though it conveys the exact same meaning.

Excuse me but who ever told you that was an idiot. Ask an attorney. It doesn't matter what you call a sale. It's the action that speaks, not what you are calling it. LEO doesn't care what you call it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compassion has nothing to do with it. What have you learned that I don't know about? I'm listening....

 

First lesson, compassion has EVERYTHING to do with it. I do think this is a fundamental disconnect in you and I as people.

 

Your reason and logic is motivated by how it impacts your personal enrichment. I look beyond myself to the people who need dispensary services to help people with dire medical needs TODAY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "goodwill" reference is that the dispensary doesn't call it a "Sale". It is like saying "Frack" when everyone knows you said "flower", "Frack" is considered "more polite" even though it conveys the exact same meaning.

 

If a dispensary wants to generate goodwill, they keep the neon leaf signs out of the window and stay low-key to avoid complaints.  LEOs are less likely to investigate a dispensary if noone is complaining.  David Leyton, Genesee County PA said exactly that after the McQueen ruling.  He said he wasn't going to pursue dispensaries unless he got a complaint from a local unit of government.

 

But you think that LEOs are giving a break to the polite dispensaries?  I'm really trying to follow your line of thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First lesson, compassion has EVERYTHING to do with it. I do think this is a fundamental disconnect in you and I as people.

 

Your reason and logic is motivated by how it impacts your personal enrichment. I look beyond myself to the people who need dispensary services to help people with dire medical needs TODAY.

Compassion has nothing to do with being legal. You can be a complete Mother Teresa and LEO doesn't give a frack about that. If she collected a penny is where the rubber hits the road. Refrain from tossing out cheap insults like that. It doesn't further anything. You have had nothing of substance to offer for pages now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me but who ever told you that was an idiot. Ask an attorney. It doesn't matter what you call a sale. It's the action that speaks, not what you are calling it. LEO doesn't care what you call it. 

 

So does your dispensary say "Sale" or "Donation"?

 

Obviously some "idiot" attorney advised them to do that. That idiot attorney even got paid to dispense the advice. To what end? I don't know, I don't own or work in a dispensary. You obviously missed the part where I indicated it is based on the permissiveness of LEO in the communities where the dispensaries exist.

 

 

You have to start with how the cases against the dispensaries have been made to understand how whole scenario works. You have to study all the cases and how they went to know why dispensaries are open now even though they are illegal. For one thing they have found that they can't make a patient testify that they bought from a dispensary. We watched this stuff unfold so we know all about it. We have heard prosecutor tell us why it's hard to shut a dispensary down and why they don't. It doesn't have a thing to do with 'wordplay'.

 

I did like this post. You've made me see that Prosecutors see dispensaries as legal so maybe 4271 isn't needed. I'll have to figure out how to convince the Supreme Court of what you seem to think the Prosecutors know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First lesson, compassion has EVERYTHING to do with it. I do think this is a fundamental disconnect in you and I as people.

 

Your reason and logic is motivated by how it impacts your personal enrichment. I look beyond myself to the people who need dispensary services to help people with dire medical needs TODAY.

 

We are talking about what is and isn't legal.  The MMMA doesn't say a thing about compassion.  Compassion has nothing to do with what the current state of the law is.  It may drive improvements to the law, but compassion isn't required for a person to be protected by the law, and being compassionate doesn't make you more protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compassion has nothing to do with being legal. You can be a complete Mother Teresa and LEO doesn't give a frack about that. If she collected a penny is where the rubber hits the road. Refrain from tossing out cheap insults like that. It doesn't further anything. You have had nothing of substance to offer for pages now. 

 

You are advocating opposition to bills that will increase access. You are advocating the dispensaries operating today be shut down because they are outside of the law. You toss around cheap insults all the time so your position on that is insignificant to me.

 

Most of your posts are conjecture lacking in support. You have no credibility or authority to me, most of what you say I just shake my head much as I'm sure you do with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not trying to open a provision center. I just want to be able to off overages to these 15 legal provision centers in my city and 30+ In my county. We need a CLEAR definition of our laws. In my opinion which is just my opinion. The supreme court McQueen ruling needs be overturned and caregivers allowed to make compensation by way of provision centers. I'm truly not in this for the big money but to help those in need. Other wise I would pay the $5000 a year to own and operate a provision center in flint. LEGALLY it was left up to the municipality to govern provision centers right. Why are our rights being dictated by the uniformed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking about what is and isn't legal.  The MMMA doesn't say a thing about compassion.  Compassion has nothing to do with what the current state of the law is.  It may drive improvements to the law, but compassion isn't required for a person to be protected by the law, and being compassionate doesn't make you more protected.

 

 

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)

Initiated Law 1 of 2008

 

333.26422 Findings, declaration.

 

 

2. Findings.

Sec. 2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:

(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.

(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.

© Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. The laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington do not penalize the medical use and cultivation of marihuana. Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.

 

I read a lot of "Compassion" in the "Findings" for the Act which are PART OF THE ACT!

Share this post


Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...