Jump to content
hollywood420

Caregiver To Caregiver To Patient Transfers

Recommended Posts

Highlander was there with me/us from the beginning of the Act, we understand things and agree. Like I said, you are just lacking the experiences we have had or you would also agree with us. We have no evil agenda and know what has went down.

 

Restorium and I have had a couple of disagreements over the years but have largely been on the same page.  It probably has something to do with us both seeking legal advice at the beginning and taking the opinions of laypeople with a grain of salt (acknowledging that laypeople on this site have actually contributed some very good legal insight that has been used by attorneys in real cases.)

 

Restorium met with Gregory Schmid.  He is the guy who spearheaded PRA2000 (Personal responsibility Act), which was a voter initiative started in 1999 to put legalization on the ballot in 2000.  Unfortunately, it didn't have enough signatures to make the ballot.  I spoke with two criminal defense attorneys with a combined experience of about 70 years.  All three attorneys gave about the same advice, and their advice was pretty much spot-on with how the case law has developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the dispensaries came up with the idea or that they have been advised to use the phrase?

 

Do you agree that euphemisms are a major part of society and exceptionally pervasive in the legal community and thus not any more "dastardly" when used here?

 

LEO drives past the locations all day, you posted the evidence that they do. Why don't they arrest? I don't think "donation" has any impact (my point on page one) but they are all doing it and all got the same "advice" even if it was terrible advice.

It's really easy to find a boat load of attorneys to tell you that dispensaries are illegal so I think dispensaries are consulting with Mary Poppins through a medium for their legal advice. 

 

I have tried to explain to you several times why they are open but I can't get through to you the mechanics of a dispensary bust. It aint easy to convict one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restorium and I have had a couple of disagreements over the years but have largely been on the same page.  It probably has something to do with us both seeking legal advice at the beginning and taking the opinions of laypeople with a grain of salt (acknowledging that laypeople on this site have actually contributed some very good legal insight that has been used by attorneys in real cases.)

 

Restorium met with Gregory Schmid.  He is the guy who spearheaded PRA2000 (Personal responsibility Act), which was a voter initiative started in 1999 to put legalization on the ballot in 2000.  Unfortunately, it didn't have enough signatures to make the ballot.  I spoke with two criminal defense attorneys with a combined experience of about 70 years.  All three attorneys gave about the same advice, and their advice was pretty much spot-on with how the case law has developed.

Zap too. He's on the same page. Thankfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the dispensaries came up with the idea or that they have been advised to use the phrase?

 

Do you agree that euphemisms are a major part of society and exceptionally pervasive in the legal community and thus not any more "dastardly" when used here?

 

LEO drives past the locations all day, you posted the evidence that they do. Why don't they arrest? I don't think "donation" has any impact (my point on page one) but they are all doing it and all got the same "advice" even if it was terrible advice.

 

I have never been to a dispensary so I don't know what phrases they use and why.  But I have met with more than a few patients and CGs over the past 5-6 years and have been given advice by them that we can legally transfer as long as we call it a "donation."  That is what I'm reacting to.  Some guy sees the widespread use of "donation" and thinks it will protect him.  I've heard this probably a dozen or more times from ordinary patients and CGs.  It is a dangerous assumption to make, and people should be aware of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all used to say it in the first few weeks of the Act. Until we got a clue from smart attorneys. It's really hard to convey great legal advice though. Everyone wants to debate it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all used to say it in the first few weeks of the Act. Until we got a clue from smart attorneys. It's really hard to convey great legal advice though. Everyone wants to debate it. 

 

Now that you mention that, I remember discussing the meaning of "(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." 

 

The early opinion was that it is illegal to sell MJ.  As things settled, we realized that it meant that a CG receiving compensation can't be said to have sold a controlled substance.  In other words, "shall not constitute the sale" was not a burden put on the CG, but was a limitation on what the CG could be accused of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been to a dispensary so I don't know what phrases they use and why.  But I have met with more than a few patients and CGs over the past 5-6 years and have been given advice by them that we can legally transfer as long as we call it a "donation."  That is what I'm reacting to.  Some guy sees the widespread use of "donation" and thinks it will protect him.  I've heard this probably a dozen or more times from ordinary patients and CGs.  It is a dangerous assumption to make, and people should be aware of that. 

 

Of all the dangerous assumptions in the MMMA I see this as one of the less dangerous because it requires a person to have contemplated protections in the first place.

 

Thanks for your explanation as you've seen it from the ground, that helps. I haven't heard anyone take the term "donation" more seriously than us here and have never heard it offered as "legitimate" advice. The signs are still there so someone believes in the rabbit's foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that you mention that, I remember discussing the meaning of "(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." 

 

The early opinion was that it is illegal to sell MJ.  As things settled, we realized that it meant that a CG receiving compensation can't be said to have sold a controlled substance.  In other words, "shall not constitute the sale" was not a burden put on the CG, but was a limitation on what the CG could be accused of.

 

That they reference it as "A registered primary caregiver" with "a registered qualifying patient" and not "The" was interesting to me. McQueen shot those semantics all to hell but that interpretation is more accurate than their interpretation of "mixtures or preparations thereof".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That they reference it as "A registered primary caregiver" with "a registered qualifying patient" and not "The" was interesting to me. McQueen shot those semantics all to hell but that interpretation is more accurate than their interpretation of "mixtures or preparations thereof".

im glad I'm not the only one that can read the law as it's written. I should not say strictly "a registered qualifying patient" it needs to be worded "a caregiver can receive compensation from their qualifying registered patient". I read it the way I see it and my brain processes it the way I read it. Edited by hollywood420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That they reference it as "A registered primary caregiver" with "a registered qualifying patient" and not "The" was interesting to me. McQueen shot those semantics all to hell but that interpretation is more accurate than their interpretation of "mixtures or preparations thereof".

 

I think that the SC's interpretation in McQueen was spot-on.  I don't like it, but I believe it was correct.  People wanted to read "a patient" as "any patient," and many people on this website argued that "a" and "any" mean the same thing.  "A" is a noun, and "any" is an adjective, so they don't even ride the same bus to school.  The McQueen opinion does a pretty good job of explaining how the indefinite article, "a," works and how "a" used in 4e ties back to earlier paragraphs that have already narrowed down that "a patient" in 4e is one of the CG's patients connected through the registry.  Anyway, no sense in discussing this at length because it is water under the bridge.  The only way to get p2p transfers or CG2anypatient is new legislation.  The horse is dead.

 

As far as mixtures and preparations, I think the COA flat out blew it.  Even if I try really hard, I can't find a way to argue their side with even a sliver of credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the SC's interpretation in McQueen was spot-on.  I don't like it, but I believe it was correct.  People wanted to read "a patient" as "any patient," and many people on this website argued that "a" and "any" mean the same thing.  "A" is a noun, and "any" is an adjective, so they don't even ride the same bus to school.  The McQueen opinion does a pretty good job of explaining how the indefinite article, "a," works and how "a" used in 4e ties back to earlier paragraphs that have already narrowed down that "a patient" in 4e is one of the CG's patients connected through the registry.  Anyway, no sense in discussing this at length because it is water under the bridge.  The only way to get p2p transfers or CG2anypatient is new legislation.  The horse is dead.

 

As far as mixtures and preparations, I think the COA flat out blew it.  Even if I try really hard, I can't find a way to argue their side with even a sliver of credibility.

 

We agree completely and I wasn't beating that horse, for the record. I agree with your post RE: Genessee County findings.

 

I can tear the wording apart and get to their decision on Carruthers but I have to ignore voter intent and the foundation of the Republic to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, no sense in discussing this at length because it is water under the bridge.  The only way to get p2p transfers or CG2anypatient is new legislation.  The horse is dead.

 

Sorry to reply to the same post twice but I didn't process quickly enough the first read.

 

There is CG2anypatient today. We are here to discuss "legal" acquisition of medical marijuana and as a patient you are legally involved in "the use of medical marijuana when you go to a Dispensary." The seller is not covered and C.G.'s overall in the current system are abused. That is what needs to be addressed, not demanding more restrictive access while the problem gets resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We agree completely and I wasn't beating that horse, for the record. I agree with your post RE: Genessee County findings.

 

I can tear the wording apart and get to their decision on Carruthers but I have to ignore voter intent and the foundation of the Republic to do it.

 

Oh - I wasn't accusing you of beating the horse.  There was another member posting about some of these long-settled matters.  That was more directed at him.

 

I can see the COA decision making sense as it relates to mixtures, when you consider that "thereof" means "of the items mentioned."  So a mixture of flowers and leaves is a mixture thereof.  A mixture of flowers, leaves, sugar, and flour isn't a "mixture thereof."  I can't see how resin isn't a "preparation of leaves and flowers." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh - I wasn't accusing you of beating the horse.  There was another member posting about some of these long-settled matters.  That was more directed at him.

 

 

I figured flogging deceased equine is what most of this is until a new decision is published. It does get to the heart though, there is a sense I get of "The legal situation as it is today." and in regards to rulings you and other esteemed posters are spot-on. The reality of the situation is it is happening today and once completed the patient has legal usable marihuana as long as they are within limits and "type". Just like it's always been in that you're free only if they don't catch you or if they let you go. They still have that power. I said it on page one; the word "donations" means nothing EXCEPT (for me) if it emboldens one dispensary operator to open the doors today then cool.

 

In the '90s I assisted four people fighting the wasting effects of cancer through marijuana (no chance of it being called "medical" back then). I used to get so embarrassed when they would thank me for helping them. Like I had done something special while they fought to keep a few pounds on to live a few more months to see their child graduate. I was nothing but a point of access yet I was the only person in their world who could help. Points of access are personal for me and I advocate for as many as possible and I want those assisting with these "miracles" to be free from persecution and prosecution. (that's background on my passion for the transfer process and not insinuating that you want to limit access)

 

 

I can see the COA decision making sense as it relates to mixtures, when you consider that "thereof" means "of the items mentioned."  So a mixture of flowers and leaves is a mixture thereof.  A mixture of flowers, leaves, sugar, and flour isn't a "mixture thereof." I can't see how resin isn't a "preparation of leaves and flowers."

 

The first interpretation that we can both arrive at is more shady than "donations" to me but hey, semantics won that day it seems and we can follow the logic at least. I differ with you here though, I read it as them saying "you didn't use leaf or flower, instead you used a resin extract thus the brownies are not a mixture of flowers and leaves." (I added this later after thinking)

 

We need to understand how they came to that conclusion about resin, leaves and flowers.

 

They cite 333.26423 Definitions. (E) and (K)

 

(e) "Marihuana" means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106.

 

(k) "Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.

 

and

 

1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106. is:

(3) “Marihuana” means all parts of the plant Canabis sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

 

"However, defendant also was in possession of brownies containing THC extracted from marijuana resin." That is from page 10 of COA Carruthers bottom of the page.

 

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20130711_c309987%2837%29_rptr_105o-309987-final.pdf

 

It doesn't post well but read page 5 - they fail the moment they try to ascertain from whence resin is produced. This is why I say I can understand their logic because as subject matter experts they fail in every possible regard. They have no knowledge or awareness of the matter and reading this Conclusion highlights that more than anything else. The lack of logic is in itself the logic explaining the decision. They don't know that "concentrates" can be a preparation of dried leaves and flowers. First instinct is to blame the defense but I don't know what conditions they were operating under so I reserve judgement. It is obvious the Court does not understand the logistical process of creating "usable marihuana concentrates" that were expressly part of the MMMA and voter intent. I call that willful ignorance to help out the Prosecutors who aren't as sharp as the defense attorneys they face.

 

Thanks for making me re-read and re-post. I've posted these same passages in a few other threads but every read of it is enlightening.

 

I edited: Can be a preparation of dried leaves and flowers. Not all concentrates are produced in this manner, edited for accuracy.

Edited by YesMichigan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im glad I'm not the only one that can read the law as it's written. I should not say strictly "a registered qualifying patient" it needs to be worded "a caregiver can receive compensation from their qualifying registered patient". I read it the way I see it and my brain processes it the way I read it.

 

 How we see it doesn't matter. The person with the silver bracelets won't care. That's the importance of this forum and the overabundance of caution expressed by so many posters. I encourage EVERYONE to embrace the knowledge here and apply caution every moment because the War has had enough martyrs.

 

The Supreme Court disagrees with the way you and I are able to read it. They were clear in McQueen to make it so people couldn't say "ahh ahh this word here..." We can't remain obtuse to that reality. Just as it is impossible to ignore how many unsanctioned cg2anypatient transfers will occur in Michigan today that result in a medical marihuana patient possessing "legal and usable marihuana".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we could stop calling it concentrates, or extracts, or oils, or dabs?

I saw a comic strip once that showed an Rx taker with fancy glasses for each pill. Some were convoluted rigs with spinners and twisted glass straws and pictures of respective pills.....I admit I was a little embarrassed of my glassware then....................

"There is CG2anypatient today. We are here to discuss "legal" acquisition of medical marijuana and as a patient you are legally involved in "the use of medical marijuana when you go to a Dispensary." The seller is not covered and C.G.'s overall in the current system are abused. That is what needs to be addressed, not demanding more restrictive access while the problem gets resolved."

 

I tend to agree with this statement. and some here are convincing me that this cg2anypatient may be in fact legal with some protections offered even!  I'm wondering now if they would like a delivery ! lol

 

I bet a thousand internets that no govern-mental body will remove our individual gardens from our homes as a whole. the more goofballs fchuck up with the rules as they are, the more restrictive they will become. Day after day I read of people fuxxing it up, possibly for all of us. these rules are silly , and silly easy to follow, for some. those that cannot continue to mold and change it slowly, intentionally or not. those wishing for change at the top, laugh at the fuxxing up.   Quit fuxxing up aleady. They bititch about pesticides....STOP USING THEM !  They want us to transport in the trunk....DO IT ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the thing with forums. if everything has been discussed, and long term members read often, much appears to be the whooping of a dead horse. New readers come daily, and telling them "go do a search in the forums, we don't want to talk anymore about your subject of interest, its already been done, move along"...our readership would drop. these are very real and very pertinent questions and concerns to a new registrant. Frustrating to me too, rehashing the same stories, accomplishments, situations, police encounters, etc, but we really do need them to be told repetitively.

 

As long as patients are getting arrested prosecuted and manipulated to take a plea on issues like illegal transport, p2p etc, NO issue is beating a dead horse to me.  I'll read the same ol same ol daily until the nonsense stops. Patients need informing, those in the know have the duty to do the informing, evidently , over, and over, and over, and over, and over, because that's what it takes.

 

peace out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the best conversations I've seen on this board. Both sides clearly articulated.

 

Some of our perceptions of the situation seem to be influenced greatly by our location. What works in Ann Arbor and Detroit doesn't work everywhere.

 

If anyone wants to test out any legal theory or loophole all they need to do is come to Oakland County.

 

Open a dispensary on Telegraph Road in Pontiac. Make a transfer to an unconnected patient on the steps of the courthouse.

 

We'll see for sure how well they hold up in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so here is another question for you well educated people.. Is cg2anyone covered under sec8?

The short answer is no.

 

Sec. 8 specifies that a patient and the patient's caregiver can participate. It is only if your "everyone" are in our exclusive club where we have records that a physician has stated our need, with or without registration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so here is another question for you well educated people.. Is cg2anyone covered under sec8?

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28vpkyxeqfntyodtjiolx2c2ro%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26428

 

333.26428 Defenses.

 

 

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

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

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

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

(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).

© If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:

(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or

(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.

 

There is Section 8 in its entirety. I see no loophole as they are specific in saying "patient's primary caregiver" which removes any ambiguity (to me) of the caregiver being discussed.

 

In your scenario under Section 8 I see...

 

Seller Side:

CG = Not covered

 

Buyer Side:

Patient = Covered (under Section 4 as long as weight and type are within limits)

Non-Patient with qualifying condition = Section 8 eligibility

Registered Caregiver = Covered - This should be under Section 4 (if within type and limits also)

No card no condition anyone = Not covered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF loophole?

primary doesn't mean anything.

 

Of course your caregiver is covered when they are helping you with actual medical use as the Act describes. Now don't take that lightly, there are some serious legal hoops to jump through to get there. But yes, a caregiver can be covered with a section 8.

Edited by Restorium2

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...