Caregiver To Caregiver To Patient Transfers

[t-pain]

A starter list of the case law that effects the MMMA:

 

 

wonder if theres a full list somewhere. too many cases to remember

[hollywood420]

I'll start by saying that I am in full agreement with your first sentence. From the second sentence on confuses and frustrates me, since that is absolutely nothing at all like what Komorn Law and the MMMA tell people. Section 8 is an Affirmative Defense, not immunity. The word defense, itself, implies that you have been likely been arrested and are facing charges.

 

I am not sure why you keep saying these things, other than wanting to believe them. I want to believe them too, but they are not true.

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/48135-hartwick-and-tuttle-amicus-briefs-filed-on-behalf-of-mmma-and-cpu/?hl=hartwickread all 46 pages. It say multiple times it is not Illegal to transfer meds to someone whom your not connected through the registry program. So for me to believe what I read why am I wrong. I guess it's just ignorance to the laws. my brain is reading one thing and it means another. This confusion and ignorance against registered patients and caregivers will be over soon.

[Restorium2]

I'll start by saying that I am in full agreement with your first sentence. From the second sentence on confuses and frustrates me, since that is absolutely nothing at all like what Komorn Law and the MMMA tell people. Section 8 is an Affirmative Defense, not immunity. The word defense, itself, implies that you have been likely been arrested and are facing charges.

 

I am not sure why you keep saying these things, other than wanting to believe them. I want to believe them too, but they are not true.

One man's frustration is another man's hope and dreams. Gray areas and loop holes are the stuff of hopes and dreams. If you are the type that really wants to help everyone stay out of trouble you hate gray areas. But if you are hoping and dreaming you need them. Like having that lottery ticket before they draw the number. In this case it's like having a losing lottery ticket from last year and you just haven't checked the numbers yet. You are always the big winner until you check the numbers. Sometimes being a winner in your mind is almost as good as really winning. The clash of realists with dreamers makes up half(or more) of the content of this web site. 

Edited February 9, 2015 by Restorium2

[t-pain]

So for me to believe what I read why am I wrong.

 

 

what this forum and its members here try to do is to keep people out of trouble.

so in the forums we try to dissuade people from doing things that would get them in trouble (court or arrested, etc).

 

thats why a lot of people here will say a person is not protected by section 4 to transfer to someone not connected.

thats what the supreme court said in the mcqueen case.

in addition to cases where police pretend to be patients or police find confidential informants to buy marijuana off other patients.

 

people may get frustrated by this opinion by many members here, but you must have patience.

 

 

if you are already in court, you need to talk to a good lawyer who knows the mmma and knows the protections.

 

arguing with us on the internet WILL NOT HELP YOU or your case.

 

if you have more questions please feel free to ask, but dont bother wasting time on the internet when your time can be better spent talking to your mayor or represenatives or other voters about the law and how prosecutors are going nuts with it.

[phaquetoo]

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.

In all actualaty no one should know but you and your c.g! and once it is in your possesion no one knows anything other than you got mm from your c.g!  There is nothing saying you as a pt cant get your meds from any where!  As a c.g it says you can only supply your pt's with mm, once you have mm in  your possesion  you most definatly can supply your pt with any mm you have, as long as you dont have over your limit!

 

As far as you all getting caught together. every one claims their mm and it goes from there, if you are all legal and dont have over your limit and dont have thousands of dollars on you, your gonna walk!

 

Peace

[Kspot]

Does anyone recommend a "compassion club", or other group to meeet with to/that discuss things of this nature? I reside inbetween grand rapids, k-zoo, and holland area..Be nice to get around like minded people once and a while...press on

[Restorium2]

In all actualaty no one should know but you and your c.g! and once it is in your possesion no one knows anything other than you got mm from your c.g!  There is nothing saying you as a pt cant get your meds from any where!  As a c.g it says you can only supply your pt's with mm, once you have mm in  your possesion  you most definatly can supply your pt with any mm you have, as long as you dont have over your limit!

 

As far as you all getting caught together. every one claims their mm and it goes from there, if you are all legal and dont have over your limit and dont have thousands of dollars on you, your gonna walk!

 

Peace

If you have to sneek and hide why register it that way? Register like you don't have a daisy chain and do it on the down low if you have to. It doesn't make any sense to register a chain then pretend like you don't have one. It's so easy to see a chain if you are LARA. Have a caregiver and being a caregiver is not stealth and you are not fooling them. Sometimes you get so wrapped up in the law you actually let it hinder you for no reason making tangled webs on paper with the State. 

[trichcycler]

Does anyone recommend a "compassion club", or other group to meeet with to/that discuss things of this nature? I reside inbetween grand rapids, k-zoo, and holland area..Be nice to get around like minded people once and a while...press on

"compassion club" sounds great. good luck with the "like minded" thing.

[trichcycler]

if a patient attempts to register two caregivers the application(s) will be denied by LARA.

if a cg attempts to register a sixth patient " " " "

If a cg attempts to register a cg for himself lara approves the application.

If a patient who has a cg becomes a cg and registers 5 patients lara approves.

 

I like lara.

working for only a few patients at one time proves labor intensive, otherwise this seems to be the most ideal registry connection

that comes to mind. legal, approved, and transparent. I wondered why dispensaries didn't operate this way from the get go. phaquers all over the place had this figured out on the first step. It makes a lot of sense too. A great way to acquire knowledge, genetics, buds, etc, all legal and private.

[phaquetoo]

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

im only answering the underlined bold type, or im giving my interpation of the law,

 

"a sale to any one whom a dr. feels would benefit from the use of mm is immune form arrest and prosecution under sec8. as long as the said sale is to someone a dr. has given a letter of rec to it would be considered a legal transaction"

 

It is legal for the pt not the person supplying to the pt if they are not directly connected thru the registry!

 

It is only legal for a c.g to supply their pt that they are registered to thru the registry, no one else, a pt can get it any where they want, a c.g may only supply pt's they are connected to thru the registry, (we are not all connected because we are legal) we are only connected if we have a c.g card for a pt, and the pt apoints you as their c.g!

 

Some county's are apparantly less dicky about this while others are hard lined and dont allow it, but to make sure what you do is legal read the law,

 

If a c.g is allowed to use sec 8. that means they were already arrested and apparently broke an mma law, other wise they would have considered it a sec 4 and dont see a court room or fines or anything!  sec 4 is to keep you from arrest and sec 8 is to help you after you broke a law under the mma's guide lines, it is there to help those with extrodinary circumstances. if the person who uses the sec 8 gets out of it w/o a full jury trial or trial they found that they did not break the law and what they did was legal under the provisions of the mma!

 

Peace

[imiubu]

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?

 

That part is fact.

[phaquetoo]

If you have to sneek and hide why register it that way? Register like you don't have a daisy chain and do it on the down low if you have to. It doesn't make any sense to register a chain then pretend like you don't have one. It's so easy to see a chain if you are LARA. Have a caregiver and being a caregiver is not stealth and you are not fooling them. Sometimes you get so wrapped up in the law you actually let it hinder you for no reason making tangled webs on paper with the State. 

If it is so easy for them to say im a daisy chain like you say, I welcome them, come on over and check out my legality!  I wish they would, to shut you up!

 

Peace

[GregS]

"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.

 

That could not possibly be more wrong in stating that sec. 8 protects from arrest and prosecution. IF a defendant can prove the elements of the affirmative defense they are protected from conviction.

[trichcycler]

With experienced long term members here walking on both sides of this I completely understand how confusion can result.

 

anything outside of the one cg 5 patient picture is risky. maybe more because the types of folks pushing those points are the types most likely to get discovered?

 

"Drug dealing has always been a dangerous business"

Grassmatch's Dad, R.I.P

[GregS]

With experienced long term members here walking on both sides of this I completely understand how confusion can result.

 

anything outside of the one cg 5 patient picture is risky. maybe more because the types of folks pushing those points are the types most likely to get discovered?

 

"Drug dealing has always been a dangerous business"

Grassmatch's Dad, R.I.P

I see no confusion. There are certainly matters of degree when counting the risks. There are also matters of counting reward. A caregiver who provides for substantially more than the five patient limit found in sec. 4 can estimate a much better return on time and effort. Patients find reliable sources in more than one caregiver. My take is that we can and should push the law to the utmost limit. I can't agree that we are all here solely to keep each other out of trouble, albeit it is a significant factor. We are here to demand those accommodations spelled out in the laws that we have put and will continue to put on the books, eliminating trouble and expanding protection in the long term. Those who seek security are more than welcome to it. For those who are looking toward improving the law in the long game, there are other options. What can be assured is that our adversaries will continue to marginalize the protections found in the law, and it is we who stand between them and having those protections rendered useless.

Edited February 9, 2015 by GregS

[t-pain]

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

 

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

 

 

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

i forgot to quote the relevent part of people v 'queen when i wrote this. seems like there are still some people who believe cg2cg is protected.

 

page 18 of the michigan supreme court opinion:

 

Similarly, § 4 immunity does not extend to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana for any purpose other than to alleviate the condition or symptoms of a specific patient with whom the

caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration process.

[trichcycler]

I see no confusion. There are certainly matters of degree when counting the risks. There are also matters of counting reward. A caregiver who provides for substantially more than the five patient limit found in sec. 4 can estimate a much better return on time and effort. Patients find reliable sources in more than one caregiver. My take is that we can and should push the law to the utmost limit. I can't agree that we are all here solely to keep each other out of trouble, albeit it is a significant factor. We are here to demand those accommodations spelled out in the laws that we have put and will continue to put on the books, eliminating trouble and expanding protection in the long term. Those who seek security are more than welcome to it. For those who are looking toward improving the law in the long game, there are other options. What can be assured is that our adversaries will continue to marginalize the protections found in the law, and it is we who stand between them and having those protections rendered useless.

send guns, money and lawyers.....

[Greg Rx]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

So the meaning of "primary" is?

[Kingdiamond]

So the meaning of "primary" is?

The specific person you name as your caregiver via the states MM registry.

[Greg Rx]

The specific person you name as your caregiver via the states MM registry.

If you have a primary caregivers and every word matters, why did the drafters feel the need to add the word primary to the Act? Could they have been allowing for a secondary caregiver? Remember " every word or absence of a word has meaning.

[Greg Rx]

Didn't The Supreme Court just rule that the intent of the law overrides the language of the Law? Surely the drafters of the Law or the voters of Michigan, never intended to force patients to buy from the black market, over a legal grower.

[t-pain]

yeah well until they revisit p2p , stay outta trouble.

[Highlander]

If you have a primary caregivers and every word matters, why did the drafters feel the need to add the word primary to the Act? Could they have been allowing for a secondary caregiver? Remember " every word or absence of a word has meaning.

Every word or absence of a word means something, except for terms defined in the act. "Primary" means nothing. "Primary caregiver" means what the act defines it as. There is no implied secondary caregiver or tertiary, or quaternary caregiver. ( the list could go on forever. At what point do you decide that you've implied enough levels of caregiver? ). The act doesn't require that a primary caregiver care or give either.

 

Why did the drafters choose to use the word "primary?" It doesn't matter, because the term is defined in the act, so there is no interpretation of what it means. The drafters could have used the term "purple people eater" instead, of "primary caregiver" and the act would mean exactly the same thing.

 

Why would the drafters imply a secondary caregiver, but also say that a "primary" caregiver can receive compensation, leaving the secondary caregiver without the protection for getting paid?

[trichcycler]

LARA will deny an application requesting a second caregiver be named. What else can a patient do to list two caregivers/cards?

[GregS]

The specific person you name as your caregiver via the states MM registry.

That ain't so kd. The law is explicit in its definition of a primary caregiver per sec. 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.

 

There is no stipulation that a caregiver be solely assigned through the registry, but can also be afforded the Affirmative Defense if that person is not registered as a patient's caregiver but is nonetheless assigned by mutual agreement.