Is this a trap?

[mibrains]

2 minutes ago, Kingdiamond said:

Thing is before the card arrives there is also no way to verify if the person you met  here or on another site isn't an undercover cop I understand that once the paperwork is signed that creates a defense but depending on location IE  north of 8 mile that defense is likely going to be denied by the Anti-cannabis Oakland county courts, on the other hand, your home will get raided and I'm just more comfortable waiting for the cards if the patient isn't I wish them well and find someone who is .

Right....

I hear you there king... anywhere near Oakland county and you folks have to follow a much more stringent set of guidelines...

i wouldn't risk anything like it if I was in Oakland or a couple other counties in Michigan....

 

[Highlander]

I don't agree that a CG needs to wait for the new patient's hard card to provide meds and be protected under Section 4.  Section 4 has some interesting differences in language in different paragraphs that suggests that a card-holding CG (meaning any CG with a card....a.k.a has already been approved by LARA) can assist a qualifying patient to whom he is connected through the registry by providing meds but only gets the protection for the 12 additional plants once the qualifying patient becomes a REGISTERED qualifying patient.  Section 4 doesn't define what "connected through the registry" means. I take it to mean that LARA has received either a patient application or change form naming the CG. And once the qualifying patient becomes a registered qualifying patient, the CG is protected for the additional plants.

Of course, this puts the onus on the CG to be sure the prospective "patient" isn't pulling a scam and showing false doc recs to buy meds day 1.   There are plenty of ways for a CG to find assurance that the prospective patient isn't pulling the wool over his eyes.  The best ways are when the CG knows the patient personally or maybe accompanies them to the doc's office for certification. 

I've posted this legal theory here a few times.   I believe it's sound, although not legal advice by any stretch, and I've never seen a court case that addresses the issue.   So, seller beware.  

 

[Kingdiamond]

All of my current patients came from this website so I did not know or had no way to know if they were not law enforcement but each gladly waited and we all are happy working together .

 

Its  a personal opinion thing some might want to roll the dice but I cant afford them coming to me and possibly burning down my world because we have a different view of how the law reads.

[mibrains]

right King...

as with everything that happens with cannabis it really does matter where you live and operate.

better safe than sorry every time.

[Restorium2]

11 hours ago, Highlander said:

I don't agree that a CG needs to wait for the new patient's hard card to provide meds and be protected under Section 4.  Section 4 has some interesting differences in language in different paragraphs that suggests that a card-holding CG (meaning any CG with a card....a.k.a has already been approved by LARA) can assist a qualifying patient to whom he is connected through the registry by providing meds but only gets the protection for the 12 additional plants once the qualifying patient becomes a REGISTERED qualifying patient.  Section 4 doesn't define what "connected through the registry" means. I take it to mean that LARA has received either a patient application or change form naming the CG. And once the qualifying patient becomes a registered qualifying patient, the CG is protected for the additional plants.

Of course, this puts the onus on the CG to be sure the prospective "patient" isn't pulling a scam and showing false doc recs to buy meds day 1.   There are plenty of ways for a CG to find assurance that the prospective patient isn't pulling the wool over his eyes.  The best ways are when the CG knows the patient personally or maybe accompanies them to the doc's office for certification. 

I've posted this legal theory here a few times.   I believe it's sound, although not legal advice by any stretch, and I've never seen a court case that addresses the issue.   So, seller beware.  

 

What if your patient went to see Dr. Buck? A lot of caregivers were holding invalid paperwork while that was going on.

Many other docs too, including the one mentioned.

The key thing here is that some unscrupulous folks are adding and subtracting patients daily like it's a game to sell to an infinite number of people. 

The intent of the law was to limit a caregiver to 5 patients and a judge can see if you were trying to get around that OR you were just trying to help this one patient that shouldn't have to wait. It's all about your actions that show your actual intent.

[Dalbert]

2 hours ago, Restorium2 said:

What if your patient went to see Dr. Buck? A lot of caregivers were holding invalid paperwork while that was going on.

Many other docs too, including the one mentioned.

The key thing here is that some unscrupulous folks are adding and subtracting patients daily like it's a game to sell to an infinite number of people. 

The intent of the law was to limit a caregiver to 5 patients and a judge can see if you were trying to get around that OR you were just trying to help this one patient that shouldn't have to wait. It's all about your actions that show your actual intent.

And I heard of one case where LEO made fake cards and then busted people who sold them meds. It's like making a fake I.D. and then arrest a store owner for selling beer to someone using it.

Of course, this IS the patients forum. Any growing or CG issues have their own forum. I guess there are many more CG (growers) than there are patients?

[Restorium2]

Just now, Dalbert said:

And I heard of one case where LEO made fake cards and then busted people who sold them meds. It's like making a fake I.D. and then arrest a store owner for selling beer to someone using it.

Of course, this IS the patients forum. Any growing or CG issues have their own forum. I guess there are many more CG (growers) than there are patients?

Yes, they made fake cards and caught people who didn't understand that they couldn't sell to everyone with a card, just the 5 total they could be connected with through the registry. 

This was after they found out they couldn't make a patient tell them and testify where they bought their medical cannabis. So they manufactured fake patients that didn't want to plead the 5th ....... for crooked judges that would overlook the entrapment.

The best thing we learned from this was they can't make a patient testify as to where they bought their cannabis.

[Garrett]

19 minutes ago, Restorium2 said:

The best thing we learned from this was they can't make a patient testify as to where they bought their cannabis.

Resto, do you have a citation for this? I'm trying to compile stuff.

[Restorium2]

It was the court case where a defense was made that since marijuana is still illegal federally a patient can't be compelled to incriminate themselves by testifying that they bought marijuana illegally just to convict the seller. 

I don't memorize the actual case names, just the precedents. 

Maybe Zap has the case name. A small amount of research would turn up the case. 

[Highlander]

On 7/11/2017 at 10:37 AM, zapatosunidos said:

People v Crowell in Lapeer County, maybe. But I don't know if that action is documented in the case since it was basically a failure of "investigation." I can't remember the timeline of that case. They sent subpoenas to 50+ patients (gleaned from seized records) to try to compel their testimony against the dispensary, and all of them plead the 5th, in my recollection.

I think you are correct, and the court offered immunity to patients for their testimony, but the patients were informed enough to know that the judge couldn't offer immunity because MJ use is still a federal crime.  I believe the case went nowhere after that.

[Highlander]

On 7/11/2017 at 7:41 AM, Restorium2 said:

What if your patient went to see Dr. Buck? A lot of caregivers were holding invalid paperwork while that was going on.

Many other docs too, including the one mentioned.

The key thing here is that some unscrupulous folks are adding and subtracting patients daily like it's a game to sell to an infinite number of people. 

The intent of the law was to limit a caregiver to 5 patients and a judge can see if you were trying to get around that OR you were just trying to help this one patient that shouldn't have to wait. It's all about your actions that show your actual intent.

I agree about actions and intent.  I don't have a revolving door for patients.  All of my patients have been with me for about 5 years or more.  I'm not too worried about providing meds day 1 under the right circumstances.  For example, I have a patient who I've been connect to since 2012.  Her husband was recently diagnosed with cancer.  He hadn't used MJ since college - probably 30+ years.  She could have easily just shared her meds with him.  But we wanted to do it right.  So he assigned me as his CG, and I didn't wait for the hard card to transfer meds.  I believe this is OK under Section 4. 

Trouble with a Dr. Buck type of situation can happen even after the hard card is issued.  If the PA and courts decide that the cert. was bad in the first place, does the CG who acted in good faith have criminal liability?  Is the burden of proof on the CG to show that the patient is legit? - either with a signed and submitted form or a card? 

On the other hand, if I kept one patient slot open....signing paperwork today, canceling it the next day, and signing up a new patient...rinsing and repeating, I wouldn't expect the courts to side with me.

[Garrett]

48 minutes ago, Highlander said:

If the PA and courts decide that the cert. was bad in the first place, does the CG who acted in good faith have criminal liability?  Is the burden of proof on the CG to show that the patient is legit? - either with a signed and submitted form or a card? 

It would seem that since the Patient effectively "hires or contracts" with the Caregiver, then the Patient would bear the legal burden alone. The Caregiver was brought into the relationship by the Patient and should therefore only be responsible for completing the paper work correctly and supply the medicine as specified. The Patient initiated the relationship and clearly demonstrates that by completing the paperwork and filing with the state .... or so it would seem to me (completely unqualified in Law but fairly sane)

[semicaregiver]

On 7/10/2017 at 7:51 PM, Kingdiamond said:

Thing is before the card arrives there is also no way to verify if the person you met  here or on another site isn't an undercover cop I understand that once the paperwork is signed that creates a defense but depending on location IE  north of 8 mile that defense is likely going to be denied by the Anti-cannabis Oakland county courts, on the other hand, your home will get raided and I'm just more comfortable waiting for the cards if the patient isn't I wish them well and find someone who is .

I am with King on this.  I am even leary after the card arrives.   Recently I had an experience with a new patient, we signed the paperwork and waited for the card.   The day the card arrived the patient asked me for 2z.   No problem two days latter he asked for 2 more and on the 4th day 2 more.   The 4th day was the end of the relationship.    This was in Macomb county.   I questioned him on why so much, i.e. making oil??   Claimed he was smoking it.  At that point I did a background check and could not find him to exist on any database, facebook or linkedin *  I dropped him.     While one can make the argument that with the card you can defend yourself it court, it is not worth the cost of going to court, better to find a new patient

[GregS]

To further protect yourself under any circumstance, please consider additional record keeping and documentation beyond, but not to exclude, registration. The courts have been firmly corrected in their wayward opinions by the Supreme Court of Michigan, and protections have been established that they are required to recognize, kicking and screaming if they must, but that they must abide by nonetheless. The following blog entry explains:

 

[Highlander]

On July 13, 2017 at 10:24 PM, semicaregiver said:

I am with King on this.  I am even leary after the card arrives.   Recently I had an experience with a new patient, we signed the paperwork and waited for the card.   The day the card arrived the patient asked me for 2z.   No problem two days latter he asked for 2 more and on the 4th day 2 more.   The 4th day was the end of the relationship.    This was in Macomb county.   I questioned him on why so much, i.e. making oil??   Claimed he was smoking it.  At that point I did a background check and could not find him to exist on any database, facebook or linkedin *  I dropped him.     While one can make the argument that with the card you can defend yourself it court, it is not worth the cost of going to court, better to find a new patient

Understood.  My 2cents above would generally apply to someone you vetted - family friend, relative, or referral from another patient.  I'll confess that in years past, I did provide meds to a new patient as soon as paperwork was signed and mailed, and I felt generally comfortable about it because I asked a lot of questions beforehand.   Now that I have long-term patients I don't need to worry about it.  I've only signed three new patients in about the last five years.  Two were a husband and wife who were close friends with a friend/long-term patient.  They both moved out of state about two years ago.   I didn't even look for replacements. Earlier this year, I signed a new patient - a doctor who was diagnosed with cancer and whose wife has been a registered patient of mine for about six years.  I had no problem offering him infused coconut oil and edibles on day one.  

But I understand the concern.  One of my first patients (in 2009, found on-line) got 2.5 oz on a Friday.  Within a week he said he was out of meds and wanted another half oz.  I gave him the benefit of the doubt and delivered the half.   He didn't need any more meds for several weeks.  It didn't take a genius to read between the lines.  That relationship didn't last long.  

 

 

[Garrett]

I need to interject something that is really important ... honest new patients. I completely understand the CG's terrible position ... a patient can purchase from almost anyone but the CG is held legally responsible for every transaction. That is wrong. It needs to be fixed within the law. One of the reasons that I moved to Michigan was the MMA and a possible treatment that might work for me. I'm new here and I understand how that may make me seem dangerous; no family ties, no relationship to patients you already have, no background in this state. Honestly, I'm not sure I have the courage that I'll be soon asking of CG's when I contact them and can show my MMA card. I don't know the answer ... but please remember that real patients do exist, we have real medical issues that qualify under the MMA, and we do need CG's to help us get started. 

It's not fair that I ask a CG to take a chance since the dangers they face are far greater then my own ... should I just buy seeds and pray I've learned enough to start growing my own ... or do I reach out and ask a CG to risk so much for my benefit?

CG's aren't alone with facing difficult issues, honest patients face similar, maybe more moral, issues ... 

[Restorium2]

9 hours ago, Garrett said:

I need to interject something that is really important ... honest new patients. I completely understand the CG's terrible position ... a patient can purchase from almost anyone but the CG is held legally responsible for every transaction. That is wrong. It needs to be fixed within the law. One of the reasons that I moved to Michigan was the MMA and a possible treatment that might work for me. I'm new here and I understand how that may make me seem dangerous; no family ties, no relationship to patients you already have, no background in this state. Honestly, I'm not sure I have the courage that I'll be soon asking of CG's when I contact them and can show my MMA card. I don't know the answer ... but please remember that real patients do exist, we have real medical issues that qualify under the MMA, and we do need CG's to help us get started. 

It's not fair that I ask a CG to take a chance since the dangers they face are far greater then my own ... should I just buy seeds and pray I've learned enough to start growing my own ... or do I reach out and ask a CG to risk so much for my benefit?

CG's aren't alone with facing difficult issues, honest patients face similar, maybe more moral, issues ... 

That's why real patients make the best caregivers. 

[Gtrick]

On 7/17/2017 at 8:53 PM, Garrett said:

I need to interject something that is really important ... honest new patients. I completely understand the CG's terrible position ... a patient can purchase from almost anyone but the CG is held legally responsible for every transaction. That is wrong. It needs to be fixed within the law. One of the reasons that I moved to Michigan was the MMA and a possible treatment that might work for me. I'm new here and I understand how that may make me seem dangerous; no family ties, no relationship to patients you already have, no background in this state. Honestly, I'm not sure I have the courage that I'll be soon asking of CG's when I contact them and can show my MMA card. I don't know the answer ... but please remember that real patients do exist, we have real medical issues that qualify under the MMA, and we do need CG's to help us get started. 

It's not fair that I ask a CG to take a chance since the dangers they face are far greater then my own ... should I just buy seeds and pray I've learned enough to start growing my own ... or do I reach out and ask a CG to risk so much for my benefit?

CG's aren't alone with facing difficult issues, honest patients face similar, maybe more moral, issues ... 

This is on point. I'm that patient.

[garyfisher]

you come across as an entitled fuk.  Rude, negative and tinkle poor attitude.  No wonder you are having such bad luck finding a caregiver.  

[Gtrick]

Thanks for your opinion Gary.  I'll note that.