Caregiver To Caregiver To Patient Transfers

[Restorium2]

You can have a c.g who dont have your grow rights, and yes they can as a pt buy it any where and supply their pt with it, because that is the reason he/cg is procuring it in the first place.

 

Peace

No. Not legally. Where did you get that from? The courts ruled that illegal.

[Restorium2]

Each bag has only one legal sale. You can't sell it again.

[trichcycler]

Every legal sale has only one exchange with the end user being the patient that will use it medically. You can't deviate from that and be legal in either section of the law.

I'm getting it. and thank you for taking the time to explain what must be a redundant subject for you by now.

 

then what of protections offered, the ones mentioned by natesilver for transfers between patients and such?

[hollywood420]

Number 3 clearly states accusistion and transfer. That is the purchase of meds for the purpose of treating your qualified patient. So me as a caregiver and a patient I can buy from any Tom dick or Harry for the purpose of treating my debilitating condition or my patients. The McQueen case was judged by a Impartial judge. Hopefully the Tuttle case with end this ignorance against us caregivers and patients alike.

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)

Initiated Law 1 of 2008

 

 

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.

 

 

History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 512, Eff. Apr. 1, 2013

Compiler's Notes: MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:10. Severability.Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.

 

 

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

[Highlander]

Each bag has only one legal sale. You can't sell it again.

Rest. Let's say I'm a CG and buy a bag of meds from another caregiver for the purpose of assisting one of my patients. I believe most of us believe this is legal for me to do and illegal for the seller. Then I sell the bag to my patient for the purpose of alleviating his condition. Legal again? I don't see how the law would prevent a CG from doing this, acknowledging the original selling CG is sticking his neck out.

[Wild Bill]

 . . I support my household as a caregiver . . .

 

There we go! You're trying to make a living by selling marijuana. That is not the purpose of this act.

 

Good luck to you but don't come crying to me. I did that for years but with the full understanding that I was breaking the law and would face consequences if caught. Man up, it's part of the business.

 

The intent of the law was to allow those of us who have serious medical issues to find relief from cannabis, not to line your pockets.

 

It always seems to boil down to, "We need dispensaries so I can sell my overages" or "We can (fill in your favorite elaborate scheme here) so we can sell to anyone". Then LEO says to the legislature, "See, they're subverting the law, we need tighter controls!" and then the legislature responds so they can tell their 80 year old constituents that they're tough on drugs.

 

I remember seeing a Greg Francisco quote to the effect of, "This isn't the caregiver enrichment act".

[hollywood420]

There we go! You're trying to make a living by selling marijuana. That is not the purpose of this act.

 

Good luck to you but don't come crying to me. I did that for years but with the full understanding that I was breaking the law and would face consequences if caught. Man up, it's part of the business.

 

The intent of the law was to allow those of us who have serious medical issues to find relief from cannabis, not to line your pockets.

 

It always seems to boil down to, "We need dispensaries so I can sell my overages" or "We can (fill in your favorite elaborate scheme here) so we can sell to anyone". Then LEO says to the legislature, "See, they're subverting the law, we need tighter controls!" and then the legislature responds so they can tell their 80 year old constituents that they're tough on drugs.

 

I remember seeing a Greg Francisco quote to the effect of, "This isn't the caregiver enrichment act".

you know what. I only make $2000 a month to cover the cost of my operation and compensation for the 100's of hours of time a month required to maintain my grow. I have been forced to make up for the difference in house hold income the state took from my home 2 yrs ago now. Prior to the state taking our kids I only made compensation from my patients and it was enough to cover grow costs and my time was free. That is hardly lining my pockets. If I drove a 2015 camero lived in a fancy house wore fancy cloths and had a provision center racking 10's of thousands of dollars in a month I would be lining my pocket. If I were one of the idiots funding 6 grow houses I would be lining my pockets. I'm not I have two patients and am a patient my self. Like I said what patient on a fixed income can afford to have a grow room added to their consumers bill. NONE. Why should they be denied meds because we as caregivers are not allowed to provide them with meds. I only make sure bills are paid. Explain again how I'm lining my pocket because from where I stand I make less then a McDonald's worker for my time invested into maintaining my patients plants.

[medmanmike]

phaquetoo, on 08 Feb 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

You can have a c.g who dont have your grow rights, and yes they can as a pt buy it any where and supply their pt with it, because that is the reason he/cg is procuring it in the first place.

 

Peace

No. Not legally. Where did you get that from? The courts ruled that illegal.

 

R2: So, if what you say is accurate, then I, as a caregiver, can only provide my patient with meds that I've grow? Is that what you're saying?

[phaquetoo]

you know what. I only make $2000 a month to cover the cost of my operation and compensation for the 100's of hours of time a month required to maintain my grow. I have been forced to make up for the difference in house hold income the state took from my home 2 yrs ago now. Prior to the state taking our kids I only made compensation from my patients and it was enough to cover grow costs and my time was free. That is hardly lining my pockets. If I drove a 2015 camero lived in a fancy house wore fancy cloths and had a provision center racking 10's of thousands of dollars in a month I would be lining my pocket. If I were one of the idiots funding 6 grow houses I would be lining my pockets. I'm not I have two patients and am a patient my self. Like I said what patient on a fixed income can afford to have a grow room added to their consumers bill. NONE. Why should they be denied meds because we as caregivers are not allowed to provide them with meds. I only make sure bills are paid. Explain again how I'm lining my pocket because from where I stand I make less then a McDonald's worker for my time invested into maintaining my patients plants.

I hope the quality is a whole lot better than mcdonald's lol........

 

Peace

[hollywood420]

I hope the quality is a whole lot better than mcdonald's lol........

 

Peace

. They get almost as much love as my ol lady Mcdoanld can touch this lol

[phaquetoo]

phaquetoo, on 08 Feb 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

You can have a c.g who dont have your grow rights, and yes they can as a pt buy it any where and supply their pt with it, because that is the reason he/cg is procuring it in the first place.

 

Peace

No. Not legally. Where did you get that from? The courts ruled that illegal.

 

R2: So, if what you say is accurate, then I, as a caregiver, can only provide my patient with meds that I've grow? Is that what you're saying?

Ahh to buzzzed............I love sundays,,,,,,got my dog at my feet.... just had me a cracker with lil oil on it so lol! gonna just try to read only for a bit...............

 

Peace

[Restorium2]

Rest. Let's say I'm a CG and buy a bag of meds from another caregiver for the purpose of assisting one of my patients. I believe most of us believe this is legal for me to do and illegal for the seller. Then I sell the bag to my patient for the purpose of alleviating his condition. Legal again? I don't see how the law would prevent a CG from doing this, acknowledging the original selling CG is sticking his neck out.

The original sale is illegal. I think that's what you meant by 'sticking his neck out'. It's not a caregiver to patient sale. 

[Kspot]

I read that out of the depensaries raided on the states east side, NO prosicutions have been fofilled. Seems to be just depends on your location of the township you live in.Like in my township I had a dispensary open, and closed in 2014 per the legeslation. But have been told in other areas close to me that the local gov takes a fee to register a dispensary, its just up to them. The shop I am talking about has been open the whole time and currently. kinda Frustrating when I was helping people 30min down the road. Just not enough. Enough togetherness.....

[blackhorse]

Let's say I am a CG and have two patients and I am a patient to a CG and I get meds from my CG for my personal use, am I legal? Now who is ever to know if these meds are transferred to my patients? Unless the three of us are together at transfer. Wouldn't this just be keeping patients happy as you would not be making any extra money. Just a thought.

[GregS]

Each bag has only one legal sale. You can't sell it again.

Do you not think that it is possible to re-purpose it? I think we should examine that.

Edited February 8, 2015 by GregS

[Wild Bill]

 

you know what. I only make $2000 a month to cover the cost of my operation and compensation for the 100's of hours of time a month required to maintain my grow. I have been forced to make up for the difference in house hold income the state took from my home 2 yrs ago now. Prior to the state taking our kids I only made compensation from my patients and it was enough to cover grow costs and my time was free. That is hardly lining my pockets. If I drove a 2015 camero lived in a fancy house wore fancy cloths and had a provision center racking 10's of thousands of dollars in a month I would be lining my pocket. If I were one of the idiots funding 6 grow houses I would be lining my pockets. I'm not I have two patients and am a patient my self. Like I said what patient on a fixed income can afford to have a grow room added to their consumers bill. NONE. Why should they be denied meds because we as caregivers are not allowed to provide them with meds. I only make sure bills are paid. Explain again how I'm lining my pocket because from where I stand I make less then a McDonald's worker for my time invested into maintaining my patients plants.

 

You're the one that said you worked as a caregiver to support your family not me. So which is it, growing to support your family or compensation for costs?

 

If it's costing you $2000 and hundreds of hours a month to grow you're definitely in the wrong field.

 

BTW I make about $3000 a year from a part time job, Social Security says I'm OK to work even though I am only able to do non-physical work for  four or five hours at a time before I'm exhausted. I'm living on what should have been my retirement money although I'm only 58.

 

I'd be thrilled to make $2000 a month.

[Kspot]

Same as having meds tested. you send in a sample, get your cert. But who knows that what was tested came from the same room as what is being presented? Same genetics but not tested necessarily. I dont know, just to much GRAY area, which is whare we operate. Keep it real and it usually wont get real outa hand...As far as compinsation goes,EX: So If Im sick and cant work a normal job and am offered state benifits but dont feel I am disabled, and choose to provide a service for someone On my time when able for a reasonable price. Is that not better then "layn" down and burdining the system more..? Just saying, If I am perviding something, I need to be able to keep things going "live", grow ect. Is that not better then taking state aid and not contributing to society at all.?

[Kspot]

I guess You need to know a person before you can gadge their true intension. Rather argue law we should be standing together to improve transparency, and create better more defind regulations. Just my crazy thoughts.. Respect to all who do more to bring to light the facts!

[GregS]

So how about repurposing cannabis? Let's say that a person who is not me agrees to act as caregiver to three patients. Said caregiver who is not me has 7.5 oz. on hand. A fourth patient appoints said caregiver to assist.

 

Can the caregiver repurpose 1 or 2 oz. and provide it to this new fourth patient? Why or why not?

 

A patient who is not me appoints a caregiver. Said patient buys two oz. from his/her caregiver. Said patient is appointed by another patient as caregiver.

 

Does the law permit that any or all of the possessed two oz. can be repurposed and furnished to the new patient?

 

I posit that it is allowed because there is no prohibition in the MMA against it.

Edited February 9, 2015 by GregS

[trichcycler]

and some might say this is beating a dead horse eh ?

[YesMichigan]

So how about repurposing cannabis? Let's say that a person who is not me agrees to act as caregiver to three patients. Said caregiver who is not me has 7.5 oz. on hand. A fourth patient appoints said caregiver to assist.

 

Can the caregiver repurpose 1 or 2 oz. and provide it to this new fourth patient? Why or why not?

 

A patient who is not me appoints a caregiver. Said patient buys two oz. from his/her caregiver. Said patient is appointed by another patient as caregiver.

 

Does the law permit that any or all of the possessed two oz. can be repurposed and furnished to the new patient?

 

I posit that it is allowed because there is no prohibition in the MMA against it.

 

333.26424

(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. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the primary caregiver presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the primary caregiver. This subsection applies only if the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

(3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.

 

 

 

I agree that the transfer is legal as defined by the MMMA but via a different route than you suggest.

 

We have three parties. A B and C. A is somebody with usable marihuana for sale and registered as a caregiver to B who is a patient and registered caregiver for C who is a patient. All three are licensed, carded and within weights.

 

B purchases a volume of medical marihuana from A. He obtains a portion of for himself as a patient. He purchases another portion for his patient. This acquisition is part of the "medical use" of his patient because the caregiver can acquire medical marihuana from any source for his patient and still maintain Section 4 immunity. There is no need to "re-purpose" because the initial acquisition is the purpose of c.g. rights.. The daisy chain ends at C unless he is a Registered Caregiver for D of course.

 

At least that is how I see it. Interested to see how I am wrong. There's still some meat on those bones, dig 'em up so we can smack 'em some more!

 

(not legal advice I don't know what I'm talking about so don't cite me if a LEO pulls you over and you read them my post to try and get out of it)

[hollywood420]

We as patients and caregivers need the Tuttle case to be over turned. According to korman law and the Mmma "a sale to anyone whom a doctor feels would benefit from the use of medical marijuana is immune from arrest and prosecution under sec8. As long as the said sale is to someone a doctor has given a letter of recommendation to it would be considered a LEGAL transaction.

All of you who feel it's a crime for a caregiver to provide meds to ANY PERSON WALKING THE STREET THAT A DOCTOR HAS PRIOR TO THE TRANSACTION SAID WOULD BENIFIT FROM THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA LET ALONE HAS A REGISTRY CARD NEEDS TO READ THIS FROM START TO FINISH. IT IS NOT A CRIME ACCORDING TO THE MMMA.

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

[blackhorse]

I plan on re-reading the MMMA, what other rulings have had an affect on the MMMA? Hoping to get a better understanding of what is going on. Thanks,

[trichcycler]

WYOMING, MI – The Michigan Supreme Court has invalidated Wyoming’s ordinance that virtually banned medical marijuana from being grown or used within city limits.

 

In the decision handed down Thursday, Feb. 6, the court rejected the city’s contention that it could strictly regulate medical marijuana because federal law still prohibited any production or possession of marijuana. Wyoming leaders said that trumped the voter-approved Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

 

For John Ter Beek, a medical marijuana advocate and patient, the state court ruling is vindication after a three-year battle.

 

“I didn’t know if people could trust the courts, but it turns out they can,” said Ter Beek, an attorney and former Godfrey-Lee School Board member who challenged the city ordinance.

 

Ter Beek said he has plants growing in his Wyoming house now and is glad to see that he and his neighbors can use marijuana under the terms of state law without having to fear harassment from the city.

 

For Wyoming, it means the city council will have to draft a new ordinance regulating medical marijuana, according to city attorney Jack Sluiter. Sluiter defended the city ordinance successfully in Kent County Circuit Court in 2011, but lost at the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2012.

 

Related: Wyoming's marijuana ordinance faces challenge before State Supreme Court

 

Sluiter says despite the loss, the case helps provide more clarity to a law that has been confusing for many. Sluiter also said Wyoming is one of several cities in Michigan that has an ordinance based on federal prohibition of marijuana.

 

“It had to get to the Supreme Court from somewhere, and unfortunately, it was us,” Sluiter said.

 

I don’t blame (city attorney) Jack Sluiter, he was only doing what he was told by those incompetent, bumbling fools -- John Ter Beek

 

It its ruling, the court said the city cannot use zoning or nuisance ordinances to preempt the Medical Marijuana Act

 

"(The court holds) that the Ordinance is preempted by ... the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, which in turn is not preempted by the federal controlled substances act," the ruling states.

 

Sluiter said in the years since the passage of the act, there has been more clarity given to the law as a result of court decisions like this one. He believes the city can devise an ordinance that will achieve the goals of regulating medical marijuana while at the same time abiding by the MMMA.

 

But TerBeek said he will keep an eye on what the city does and is prepared to go to battle again if need be.

 

“Whatever they try, if it’s not to my liking, they will be back in court and I have proven when I go to court, I win,” Ter Beek said.

 

Ter Beek is highly critical of the Wyoming City Council and mayor which he said wasted an estimated $13,000 to $15,000 on the lawsuit.

 

“I don’t blame Jack Sluiter, he was only doing what he was told by those incompetent, bumbling fools,” Ter Beek said. “I told them if they enacted this ordinance, I would file a suit within a week and I had it in six days. I stick to my word.”

 

Mayor Jack Poll was not immediately available for comment

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/02/michigan_supreme_court_strikes.html

https://www.google.com/#q=Ter+Beek+v+Wyoming

 

great read!

[Willy]

Wyoming, the land that time forgot!

 

“I don’t blame Jack Sluiter, he was only doing what he was told by those incompetent, bumbling fools,” Ter Beek said. “