Caregiver To A Caregiver Of A Child

[trichcycler]

would you provide this caregiver marijuana knowing he is a caregiver for his child ? ahem

 

why?

why not?

[Highlander]

If I got to know the parents first, then yes, I'd probably help. I suspect many CGs in michigan feel the same.

 

I'd try to encourage the parents to grow, but if they can't.... Well somtimes ethics trump the law for those willing to take the risk.

 

I remember as a teen I enjoyed the series, Magnum PI. You might recall that the character, Higgens, was an old British military guy. In one episode, there was discussion about higgens having been directed/ordered to do bad things to good people in his past service. He said that he was going to follow orders from a higher power and so went against what the British military directed him to do, despite being a good little soldier.

 

Sure, this is fiction, but the sentiment remains.

[YesMichigan]

would you provide this caregiver marijuana knowing he is a caregiver for his child ? ahem

 

why?

why not?

 

I'm going to break it down a little to keep entities apart from their potential dual roles.

 

A = Person with marihuana to provide

B = Registered Caregiver of a Small child (I would like to clarify if this person is also a MMMA cardholder as a patient)

C= Small Child patient with Grow rights assigned to B

 

As A is B registered through LARA to me in any way?

 

Since the child has a recommendation any angle of "child endangerment" or such is false because the child is permitted for medical use and only the registered caregiver can determine what that means.

 

Now we're back to the five patient daisy chain rule to stay within Section 4. I assume all questions pertain to Section 4 because short of being that at the scene and you're gonna have pictures and fingerprints taken. Which to me means I failed in answering your question.

 

The maze always had one path. Use marijuana, get caught go to jail.

 

Now there is a new maze. Lots of paths most ending in the same place as before but there is a chance now if you prepare and don't just start drawing lines on the paper.

[t-pain]

supreme court doesnt care about protecting these transfers.

 

and as far as i can tell daisy chains are not protected.

Edited February 26, 2015 by t-pain

[Highlander]

You lost me at "five patient daisy chain rule."

[trichcycler]

B & C both registered to each other. B is also a patient himself. B is scared to death to grow with a sick child in his home. He reads of those crazy CPS stories, and sees procuring supply as a lesser risk than growing it.

[trichcycler]

I missed that. what is the daisy chain rule?

why would lara gladly allow us to daisy chain to our hearts content if'n it was illegal to do so?

[t-pain]

because its supposed to be medicine for the patient you are registered to, not medicine for some person 5 cgs and patients away.

 

at least thats what the supreme court said.

 

so the only way i'd transfer to a caregiver of a minor patient is if that parent was a patient himself and i was registered to him as a caregiver. what he does with his pot is his own problem but i'm only transferring to him for his medical condition.

Edited February 26, 2015 by t-pain

[t-pain]

i mean. to be legally protected.

 

if i knew the parent of a sick kid i'd probably transfer to him

[trichcycler]

I'd be afraid to be wrapped up in some landlord tenant child protective services fiasco really.

if its legal for me to supply my patient with buds, and its legal for him to supply his patient with buds....who

could possibly see BOTH transactions I wonder?

 

not trying to skirt the law of course you know me better than that.

but a child man, what a grower to do for a suffering parent?

[YesMichigan]

You lost me at "five patient daisy chain rule."

 

I missed that. what is the daisy chain rule?

why would lara gladly allow us to daisy chain to our hearts content if'n it was illegal to do so?

 

It isn't a "rule" just an aspect of the law unavoidable given its wording and effective flow-charting. It's been illustrated before but I can do it again because I like to think about it and see if I'm wrong:

 

A = Parent of Minor child (grow rights) Patient of and Caregiver for B. Grow rights assigned to B

B = Patient of C and Caregiver for A. Grow rights assigned to C

C = Patient of D and Caregiver for B. Grow rights assigned to D

 

Now if we say that A is also Caregiver for the minor child and thus has Grow Rights from that status (those can't be transferred as I understand). A can acquire marihuana from any source for his patient. He can legally purchase from B. B can legally purchase from C who can purchase from D. If we say you are "D" then it is possible for a state sanctioned legal transfer to occur from D to A as long as the people in the transactions are registered through LARA. While it wouldn't be a "Direct" transfer it can occur with a well-planned network. It would maintain Section 4 compliance I contend.

[YesMichigan]

B & C both registered to each other. B is also a patient himself. B is scared to death to grow with a sick child in his home. He reads of those crazy CPS stories, and sees procuring supply as a lesser risk than growing it.

 

B is covered to purchase marihuana from anyone. He can purchase from C and C has no business telling him who can or can't use it as long as he isn't transferring more than the allowable amount for patient B. Transferring 5 ounces to patient B would be an error, in my opinion because C does not have authority to transfer amounts for the minor child or for patient B. As C you know B is authorized to acquire 2.5 ounces of "usable marihuana" from you (registered and all that) so you provide it to him. What he does is up to him because he is a patient and caregiver. At his house B can have 5 ounces.

[trichcycler]

off topic a little...but

I'm not sure of my liability when providing my patient with more than 2.5 ounces at one time. this is his rule to follow, not mine?

[t-pain]

his rule. untested in court though.

 

could always provide it still attached to mature stalks and hope for the best...

Edited February 26, 2015 by t-pain

[YesMichigan]

off topic a little...but

I'm not sure of my liability when providing my patient with more than 2.5 ounces at one time. this is his rule to follow, not mine?

 

(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.

 

Let's assume the providing caregiver is not a patient. If they have 5 ounces of marihuana their Section 4 is in jeopardy. Possessing an amount to account for Patient's B requirement and their patient would potentially place the providing caregiver in jeopardy as he has no registered status to possess the amount.

 

You are correct. Transferring it within possession limits (you can possess 5 ounces 2.5 for you (as a patient) and 2.5 for your patient) to your patient (he can have 5 ounces 2.5 for him and 2.5 for minor child) appears to not violate any elements of the Act as written.

[Highlander]

It isn't a "rule" just an aspect of the law unavoidable given its wording and effective flow-charting. It's been illustrated before but I can do it again because I like to think about it and see if I'm wrong:

 

A = Parent of Minor child (grow rights) Patient of and Caregiver for B. Grow rights assigned to B

B = Patient of C and Caregiver for A. Grow rights assigned to C

C = Patient of D and Caregiver for B. Grow rights assigned to D

 

Now if we say that A is also Caregiver for the minor child and thus has Grow Rights from that status (those can't be transferred as I understand). A can acquire marihuana from any source for his patient. He can legally purchase from B. B can legally purchase from C who can purchase from D. If we say you are "D" then it is possible for a state sanctioned legal transfer to occur from D to A as long as the people in the transactions are registered through LARA. While it wouldn't be a "Direct" transfer it can occur with a well-planned network. It would maintain Section 4 compliance I contend.

The whole house of cards sounds nice but you have to consider what the Supreme Court discussed in the McQueen ruling. Chief Justice Robert young was clear and direct in his question (paraphrased) "how does the giver's/ seller's pain get alleviated?"

 

The SC opinion goes on to discuss the intent of a transfer...that a CGs transfer to a patient must be for the purpose of alleviating THAT patient's condition - not some other patient's condition. So, effectively, the daisy chain idea was squashed.

[YesMichigan]

The whole house of cards sounds nice but you have to consider what the Supreme Court discussed in the McQueen ruling. Chief Justice Robert young was clear and direct in his question (paraphrased) "how does the giver's/ seller's pain get alleviated?"

 

The SC opinion goes on to discuss the intent of a transfer...that a CGs transfer to a patient must be for the purpose of alleviating THAT patient's condition - not some other patient's condition. So, effectively, the daisy chain idea was squashed.

 

You nailed it. Which is why I like typing out the whole chain because "intent" creates the interpretation in Court.

 

This is where the burden of proof and plausible deniability meet obstruction of justice or even perjury.

 

I'm glad I took the time to type the whole thing out if only to get your reply. I'm sure people have thought through my scenario and feel comfortable in the "Law" but as is consistently advised "Look at rulings and not just the Act." This is "Common Law" in effect. Thank you.