Caregiver To Caregiver To Patient Transfers

[GregS]

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. 

I've been told in hushed, reverential tones. The tough part is not laughing out loud.

[GregS]

But the cg2anyone (with a card) transfer was for the purpose to make compensation to be able to continue providing meds for their patient.

Knock yourself out. Good luck. Please keep up with us while you move it through the legislature.

[YesMichigan]

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.

 

"patient's primary" is what I should have said to denote it. Thank you.

 

The question wasn't "Can a caregiver be covered with a Section 8"?

 

Is the caregiver performing cg2anyone covered under section 8? Essentially, can a dispensary store owner today qualify for Section 8 coverage as he sells to every person who walks in with a valid registration card?

[GregS]

"patient's primary" is what I should have said to denote it. Thank you.

 

The question wasn't "Can a caregiver be covered with a Section 8"?

 

Is the caregiver performing cg2anyone covered under section 8? Essentially, can a dispensary store owner today qualify for Section 8 coverage as he sells to every person who walks in with a valid registration card?

The definition of "primary caregiver" is spelled out in the law.

 

§3(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.

 

It is common to both § §4 and 8 and means neither more nor less than that. 

Edited February 7, 2015 by GregS

[hollywood420]

"patient's primary" is what I should have said to denote it. Thank you.

 

The question wasn't "Can a caregiver be covered with a Section 8"?

 

Is the caregiver performing cg2anyone covered under section 8? Essentially, can a dispensary store owner today qualify for Section 8 coverage as he sells to every person who walks in with a valid registration card?

Sec8 protection is the only thing that makes sense to me. I'm going to contact Bruce Allen block a mmm attorney and ask if that's the defense used in municipalities that allow such provision centers. I mean come on their all over Lansing and flint and advertising prices in every mmm report publication. I completely understand why patient to anyone wouldn't qualify for sec 4 protection but us as care givers are allowed by our law to be compensated. We have bills associated with the cultivation of our patients meds. And if our patients are on fixed incomes they can't afford to cover the cost of culivating there meds or they would do it for them selves. I will continue my fight for our right for caregiver2any card holder transfers. Even though in my heart I feel it has been allowed all along. Edited February 7, 2015 by hollywood420

[t-pain]

But the cg2anyone (with a card) transfer was for the purpose to make compensation to be able to continue providing meds for their patient.

 

just so you are clear, the supreme court ruled that a 'sale' is the same thing as a 'transfer' under section 4.

 

just that the supreme court also ruled that a caregiver is only protected by sec4 when hes selling or transferring to someone connected in the registry.

 

and a patient is only protected when the transfer is for HIS OWN medical benefit.

Edited February 7, 2015 by t-pain

[YesMichigan]

The definition of "primary caregiver" is spelled out in the law.

 

§3(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.

 

It is common to both sec. 4 and 8 and means no more or less than that. 

 

You missed the point of my correction. Section 8 specifically stipulates "patient's primary caregiver"

 

Section 4 uses the more generic "a caregiver" which is defined under Definitions exactly as you listed. My point was Section 8 uses different wording to describe the "type" of caregiver getting protection. You can re-read and address the point specifically but this most recent post did not address anything I discussed.

 

I think you know the law better than that. Re-read Carruthers if you need to be reminded how much the placing of a single word means.

[GregS]

There is no distinction between them in the statutory definition. They are the same thing.

[GregS]

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)

 

 

 

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.

We get it. Resin is a legitimate preparation of the dried leaves and flowers. It is only a matter of time before this will be resolved in the courts. I expect to see it with the Kent County corrections officers who are facing charges of using budder, and wish them well.

[YesMichigan]

We get it. Resin is a legitimate preparation of the dried leaves and flowers. It is only a matter of time before this will be resolved in the courts. I expect to see it with the Kent County corrections officers who are facing charges of using budder, and wish them well.

 

Okay.

[GregS]

(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 is being addressed. We are waiting for the Supreme Court rulings scheduled to be out soon. Perhaps the Justices will speak to the issue. Evidentiary matters are being weighed. Study hard. There will be a quiz.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/48135-hartwick-and-tuttle-amicus-briefs-filed-on-behalf-of-mmma-and-cpu/?hl=hartwick

Edited February 7, 2015 by GregS

[Hayduke]

 okay, you mention over and over the phrase "primary caregiver" or "patient's primary"....

 

this was a topic several years ago that we all wondered about.  

 

1. according to Karen O'Keefe from MPP, who helped draft the original language, this was a lift from the Hawaii mmj bill where they allowed more than one caregiver.  She told me directly that it was inadvertently left in the Michigan bill, and since nothing else referenced to it in the MI bill, it actually means nothing.

 

2. in McQueen, and several other Supreme Court cases this has been addressed and ruled on.  patient to patient et al...

 

so if you have pet theories, label them as such, or likely folks will suggest you follow your convictions and test your theory (which in my opinion would not be a good thing to do)

 

"patient's primary" is what I should have said to denote it. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

[YesMichigan]

 okay, you mention over and over the phrase "primary caregiver" or "patient's primary"....

 

this was a topic several years ago that we all wondered about.  

 

1. according to Karen O'Keefe from MPP, who helped draft the original language, this was a lift from the Hawaii mmj bill where they allowed more than one caregiver.  She told me directly that it was inadvertently left in the Michigan bill, and since nothing else referenced to it in the MI bill, it actually means nothing.

 

2. in McQueen, and several other Supreme Court cases this has been addressed and ruled on.  patient to patient et al...

 

so if you have pet theories, label them as such, or likely folks will suggest you follow your convictions and test your theory (which in my opinion would not be a good thing to do)

 

Do you not read the difference in Section 4 and Section 8 wording? It isn't a "pet phrase" you are mixing up two different sections and wanting them to be written and behave in the same manner. COA delineates in Carruthers that the "hurdle" for protection of Section 8 is higher and very difficult. My contention is wiggle room (because of McQueen) is REDUCED by wording that is more specific in Section 8 than Section 4. I can illustrate it but you and I agree - in your ire you missed that.

 

No "pet theories" but EVEN if it was it would still be appropriate here as this is the area to discuss such ideas. "Folks" can suggest all they want, I fully support the First Amendment. They will have no impact on my actions though.

[garyfisher]

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

People shouldn't seek out forums as legal advice.  

[Hayduke]

I have no ire at all.  I don't know you from Adam or Eve... I only read a few pieces of the thread, but obviously I hit a nerve...

 

I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV... nor do I wish to debate minutiae...

 

My comment about pet theories, I stand by.  This is not a first amendment discussion in any way, shape, or means, so what is that comment about....?  I do not think "wiggle room" is a legal term or strategy, and I think many of your comments tend to address specific legal wording so that is ironic as well.  Personally many of your comments should be addressed to a court of law, not a bunch of lay people.

 

I attended the Supreme Court on McQueen, and again recently I attended Hartwick, Tuttle and Mazur.  CPU sponsored Dan Grow's Amicus on Hartwick.  That states the position I think makes the most sense on that matter on that case.  I would urge you to seek out that Amicus and the one submitted by MMMA.  Both have been posted here, and are available at the Supreme Court site as well.

 

Many of your comments about section 4 and 8 will be decided by the Supreme Court soon enough.  I won't weigh in on that, because it clouds up the water, at a time we need some clarity and settling.

[YesMichigan]

I have no ire at all.  I don't know you from Adam or Eve... I only read a few pieces of the thread, but obviously I hit a nerve...

 

I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV... nor do I wish to debate minutiae...

 

My comment about pet theories, I stand by.  This is not a first amendment discussion in any way, shape, or means, so what is that comment about....?  I do not think "wiggle room" is a legal term or strategy, and I think many of your comments tend to address specific legal wording so that is ironic as well.  Personally many of your comments should be addressed to a court of law, not a bunch of lay people.

 

I attended the Supreme Court on McQueen, and again recently I attended Hartwick, Tuttle and Mazur.  CPU sponsored Dan Grow's Amicus on Hartwick.  That states the position I think makes the most sense on that matter on that case.  I would urge you to seek out that Amicus and the one submitted by MMMA.  Both have been posted here, and are available at the Supreme Court site as well.

 

Many of your comments about section 4 and 8 will be decided by the Supreme Court soon enough.  I won't weigh in on that, because it clouds up the water, at a time we need some clarity and settling.

 

You admit you didn't read what had been said yet you want to limit discussion as you see fit in a discussion forum. That will always irritate me. If you don't care or you already know then move on.

 

The purpose of this forum (and specifically THIS SECTION of the forum) is to do what is being done here, discuss them outside of the court room and amongst lay people.

 

I read the submissions in those cases, Prosecution's and Defendant's. Plenty of people attended, I don't think attendance is conveyance of understanding.

 

Your attempt to stop me from clouding up the water is noted.

[GregS]

Do you not read the difference in Section 4 and Section 8 wording? It isn't a "pet phrase" you are mixing up two different sections and wanting them to be written and behave in the same manner. COA delineates in Carruthers that the "hurdle" for protection of Section 8 is higher and very difficult. My contention is wiggle room (because of McQueen) is REDUCED by wording that is more specific in Section 8 than Section 4. I can illustrate it but you and I agree - in your ire you missed that.

 

No "pet theories" but EVEN if it was it would still be appropriate here as this is the area to discuss such ideas. "Folks" can suggest all they want, I fully support the First Amendment. They will have no impact on my actions though.

And???

[Hayduke]

You admit you didn't read what had been said yet you want to limit discussion as you see fit in a discussion forum. That will always irritate me. If you don't care or you already know then move on.

 

The purpose of this forum (and specifically THIS SECTION of the forum) is to do what is being done here, discuss them outside of the court room and amongst lay people.

 

I read the submissions in those cases, Prosecution's and Defendant's. Plenty of people attended, I don't think attendance is conveyance of understanding.

 

Your attempt to stop me from clouding up the water is noted.

 

little testy here?  feel irritated?

 

take a deep breathe

[YesMichigan]

little testy here?  feel irritated?

 

take a deep breathe

 

Prohibitionists of thought irritate the hell out of me. I don't need a breath but your compassion is wonderful. Thank you!

[hollywood420]

I'm glad I brought this topic up again. ☺️The links are very useful. I am reading every word all of you write. thanks to all.

[YesMichigan]

I'm glad I brought this topic up again. ☺️The links are very useful. I am reading every word all of you write. thanks to all.

 

Thank you for that feedback. As it gets hotly contested I worry that the OP has lost utility from their own thread.

 

This is all discussion and you seem to understand that perfectly. My duty as a Citizen is to KNOW the Act. ABIDE by the Act and be AWARE of the attorneys who will zealously represent me if I did the first two and am still in silver bracelets.

 

That really is all that matters. I do make the assumption that people reading here are already in the 5% of people who want to examine the minutiae of this law and how it affects over 100,000 people in the state every day.

 

A thread like this is good because there are so many links to decisions but this forces the forum users to connect dots and illustrate relevancy between them as opposed to a wall of information.

[Hayduke]

well you are safe to remove your tinfoil hat...

 

your thoughts are safe with you!

[GregS]

Thank you for that feedback. As it gets hotly contested I worry that the OP has lost utility from their own thread.

 

This is all discussion and you seem to understand that perfectly. My duty as a Citizen is to KNOW the Act. ABIDE by the Act and be AWARE of the attorneys who will zealously represent me if I did the first two and am still in silver bracelets.

 

That really is all that matters. I do make the assumption that people reading here are already in the 5% of people who want to examine the minutiae of this law and how it affects over 100,000 people in the state every day.

 

A thread like this is good because there are so many links to decisions but this forces the forum users to connect dots and illustrate relevancy between them as opposed to a wall of information.

Okaay.

[hollywood420]

My issue is in family court. I have a marijuana hating judge and prosecutor and they are trying to keep my kids because I support my household as a caregiver protected under the act. The problem is. I have been under the assumption for years now that is a legal transaction for a caregiver to transfer med to another caregiver or patient when handled through a safe transfer center in my county. When they took our kids they took $1224.40 a month from us and I have been put in a position to make sure I have a roof over our heads for the children to come home to. And a functioning grow room to supply my patients needs. I don't were fancy shoe or clothes I have a piece of sh it van that only has r-1-2 gears. I'm not getting rich and barely getting by with what I make. My patients are on fixed incomes and can't afford to cover the cost of growing let alone provision center prices. I prefer compassion clubs and a rented space to transfer to needy patients and caregivers between harvests with patients needs. Without the ability to transfer to any card holder I couldn't pay the running cost of my patients room. I have proven my innocence on all abuse charges against us and now it down to this bs. And now because of the McQueen ruling they are holding it against me. For 4 years and 31 Cps complaints marijuana was never a issue brought up. But the day the day we proved our innocense and the judge made the comment "DONT LET THIS BECOME ABOUT MARIJUANA" it has been the issue. I sure hope these new rulings come out soon. Help what can I do? I have been requesting a jury trial since July 2014 and has be adjourned 4x now.

Edited February 7, 2015 by hollywood420

[GregS]

My issue is in family court. I have a marijuana hating judge and prosecutor and they are trying to keep my kids because I support my household as a caregiver protected under the act. The problem is. I have been under the assumption for years now that is a legal transaction for a caregiver to transfer med to another caregiver or patient when handled through a safe transfer center in my county. When they took our kids they took $1224.40 a month from us and I have been put in a position to make sure I have a roof over our heads for the children to come home to. I don't were fancy shoe or clothes I have a piece of sh it van that only has r-1-2 gears. I'm not getting rich and barely getting by with what I make. My patients are on fixed incomes and can't afford to cover the cost of growing let alone provision center prices. I prefer compassion clubs and a rented space to transfer to needy patients and caregivers between harvests with patients needs. Without the ability to transfer to any card holder I couldn't pay the running cost of my patients room. I have proven my innocence on all abuse charges against us and now it down to this bs. And now because of the McQueen ruling they are holding it against me. For 4 years and 31 Cps complaints marijuana was never a issue brought up. But the day the day we proved our innocense and the judge made the comment "DONT LET THIS BECOME ABOUT MARIJUANA" it has been the issue. I sure hope these new rulings come out soon. Help what can I do? I have been requesting a jury trial since July 2014 and has be adjourned 4x now.

Provided there are no contrary facts you likely have a good sec. 8 case. Other people have been through the wringer with CPS. Please see the Green case.

 

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2013/10/baby_bree_returns_home_as_medi.html