Patient To Patient Transfers

[the green leaf farmacy]

Ok, Ray Charles it is.....

 

"Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

 

(h) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

 

P2P, IS COVERED under MEDICAL USE. This is a copy pase right off the STATE LAW.

 

If I am a patient, I am alowed to participate in "MEDICAL USE"

 

The term MEDICAL USE MEANS - I as a patient CAN: acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, use, DELIVER, TRANSFER, in RELATION TO: the ADMINISTRATION of, or to TREAT or ALLEVIATE a "REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENTS" debilitating medical condition or symtoms assctd with...

 

So, if I as a patient can DELIVER, who can I deliver it to?

can TRANSFER, who can I TRANSFER TO?

can ADMINISTER, to who?

 

Ahhh wait, the answer is right there....

 

I can DELIVER, TRANSFER or ADMINISTER to: "a registered qualifying patient"

 

its right there Ray, right there....

the term medical use is a definition not all parts pertain to one group if it did you would not need a caregiver

[the green leaf farmacy]

What about the rest of the law?

 

Like the inclusion of this:

 

"(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

"

 

What does that statement mean to you? To me it says that a patient or caregiver is able to sell to somebody that is allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes. Also that if a patient or caregiver sells to someobdy that is not allowed to use for medical purposes that there will be a penalty imposed on top of other laws.

 

Pretty clear, in black and white.

all that is saying is a paient can not sell to a non patient not that he can sell to a reg patient and the same thing for a caregiver no where does it say a patient can take a fee for his sevice he can not

[peanutbutter]

the term medical use is a definition not all parts pertain to one group if it did you would not need a caregiver

 

so if you pick and choose which words you like and which ones you don't, then the law reads exactly the way you want it to

[freakydawg420]

so if you pick and choose which words you like and which ones you don't, then the law reads exactly the way you want it to

 

 

I like, I like

[the green leaf farmacy]

so if you pick and choose which words you like and which ones you don't, then the law reads exactly the way you want it to

i did not write this porly written law an its all open to the way the judge interpets it just like you and i do

[freakydawg420]

I am having a discussion with a friend and we cannot agree if patient to patient transfer are legal or not. so I thought I would ask you. thanks

 

 

Have you and your friend figured out the answer yet, or are you still arguing about it?

[peanutbutter]

i did not write this porly written law an its all open to the way the judge interpets it just like you and i do

 

if you pick and chose which words you like and don't like, then the law becomes confusing

 

As a starting point, the word "transfer" is there in the law. This is a simple fact.

 

A transfer requires two people. Only one of those is listed in that section. And that is one of the P's. It has to benefit a patient.

[+RevThad]

all that is saying is a paient can not sell to a non patient not that he can sell to a reg patient and the same thing for a caregiver no where does it say a patient can take a fee for his sevice he can not

Why even include the language? Lets try to simplify it a bit more.

 

If I setup a limit on who you cannot sell to, and it is not all inclusive (i.e. you cannot sell to anybody), one must accept the position that it is allowable to sell to those that are not covered by that limit.

 

Like the liquor and tobacco laws. You are not allowed to sell to a person under a certain age, therefore the reciprocal of that is that you can sell to those over that age.

 

Hope that clears it up for you, if not please let's continue until there is at least some agreement on this subject. Hashing out both sides of this position is good for all involved.

[thanks2]

Voter initiatives are liberally construed to full fill the will of the people, by law. Since the definition of medical use includes transfer and delivery of marijuana and the ballet states a patient and care giver do not have to be registered, it is the peoples intent that medical marijuana users will not be prosecuted, registered or not. The registration process, according to the will of the people, has no direct effect on this protection, except to prevent arrest. Thus, since registration is not necessary to prevent prosecution, it does not make sense that only registered care givers and patients can lawfully engage in the use of medical marijuana, that will not fulfill the intention of the people.

[the green leaf farmacy]

if you pick and chose which words you like and don't like, then the law becomes confusing

its interpreting not picking and choseing and in case you have got it yet the reason we are having all these problems is that the law is confusing.

[freakydawg420]

Edited to correct my response..... will finish responding here.

 

 

Who is allowed to engage in medical use? Only caregivers or only patients or both?

 

Are you suggesting that there is some magical dividing line in the definition of medical use? Something that is not written there to differentiate between who is allowed to engage in which parts of "medical use" as defined by the law?

 

While my reading comprehension may not be as psychicly linked as yours, just moving a bit down the page from the sections you keep trying to quote to bear proof of your position... we come across an answer to that question of who is allowed to engage in medical use:

 

"(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:"

 

 

Notice that it suggests that both patients and/or caregivers are able to be engaged in the "medical use", and further it states that there shall be a presumption of that very thing, as long as the criteria are met. So what is the test of that presumption?

 

"(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act.

"

 

Check.

 

 

I don't see that magical line telling me what part of medical use I can partake in either....

must be hmmmm ALL OF THEM?

[+JuztBudz]

Okay Ray, it states clearly that the patient has the right of transfer, I don't know what that means where you live, but here in Michigan, transfer is a rather simple term. Transfer per Webster's is

a : to convey from one person, place, or situation to another : move, shift

b : to cause to pass from one to another : transmit c : transform, change 2: to make over the possession or control of : convey

 

In terms of the intent of the people, that means that one may transfer from one person to another as long as the recieving person is recieving medicinal benefit from that transfer.

 

I don't really care what the police SAY about transfers, as it is their job to carry out the law, NOT to interpret said law. That is a job left to the court system. When the courts say that p/p transfers are illegal, then it is the job of the police to enforce said law, not before...as I've stated before, this is one that I pray goes to a person of some wealth, as it needs to be properly tried in a court, then appealed if the lower courts go against the intent of the people...just MHO, as I'm no lawyer. Peace...j.b.

 

 

were did it say patient to patient where are the words that say a patient can assest another patient with medical use i cant see that call me ray charles

 

 

 

[the green leaf farmacy]

Why even include the language? Lets try to simplify it a bit more.

 

If I setup a limit on who you cannot sell to, and it is not all inclusive (i.e. you cannot sell to anybody), one must accept the position that it is allowable to sell to those that are not covered by that limit.

 

Like the liquor and tobacco laws. You are not allowed to sell to a person under a certain age, therefore the reciprocal of that is that you can sell to those over that age.

 

Hope that clears it up for you, if not please let's continue until there is at least some agreement on this subject. Hashing out both sides of this position is good for all involved.

but rev that part of the law is redundent becuase a patient can not sell pot. so they must mean what i said

[Guest finallyfree09]

the term medical use is a definition not all parts pertain to one group if it did you would not need a caregiver

a cg does not engage in medical use. a cg ASSISTS a registered qualifying patient with THEIR medical use.

 

two definitions of "medical use" are TRANSFER and DELIVERY. that says to me that i am allowed to transfer or DELIVER meds to another patient. no one can be prosecuted for assisting with a patients "medical use" (transfer, delivery) of marijuana or for administering (to dispense, dole out in small quantities... look it up in the dictionary) marijuana to a registered qualifying patient.

 

i am no lawyer so my interpretation of the law means squat so i could be wrong, but.... looks like its all there to me. just replace the term "medical use" with any of the words that are listed in the definition and THAT is what a registered qualifying patient can do.

 

this is all just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt

[the green leaf farmacy]

Okay Ray, it states clearly that the patient has the right of transfer, I don't know what that means where you live, but here in Michigan, transfer is a rather simple term. Transfer per Webster's is

a : to convey from one person, place, or situation to another : move, shift

b : to cause to pass from one to another : transmit c : transform, change 2: to make over the possession or control of : convey

 

In terms of the intent of the people, that means that one may transfer from one person to another as long as the recieving person is recieving medicinal benefit from that transfer.

 

I don't really care what the police SAY about transfers, as it is their job to carry out the law, NOT to interpret said law. That is a job left to the court system. When the courts say that p/p transfers are illegal, then it is the job of the police to enforce said law, not before...as I've stated before, this is one that I pray goes to a person of some wealth, as it needs to be properly tried in a court, then appealed if the lower courts go against the intent of the people...just MHO, as I'm no lawyer. Peace...j.b.

if a patient has the same medical use as a caregiver than why do we need caregivers why not patient to patient a patient can grow 12 plants and just transfer them why is there a caergiver clause in the law

[Guest finallyfree09]

if a patient has the same medical use as a caregiver than why do we need caregivers why not patient to patient a patient can grow 12 plants and just transfer them why is there a caergiver clause in the law

a caregiver CANNOT engage in "medical use" of marijuana (unless said cg is a patient). a cg merely ASSISTS a registered qualifying patient with their "medical use."

 

once again... my humble opinion

[freakydawg420]

if a patient has the same medical use as a caregiver than why do we need caregivers why not patient to patient a patient can grow 12 plants and just transfer them why is there a caergiver clause in the law

 

Some patients are able, willing, and have the means to grow and provide their own meds.

 

Some patients are homebound in wheelchairs, and can not grow their own, or go out to get it. This is where they may need a Caregiver to assist them.

 

Some patients might just not want to grow their own, they may choose a caregiver.

 

Caregiver clause only makes it possible for a patient to use a caregiver to assist them if needed/wanted.

 

From the looks of it to me, the caregiver clause also allows a patient to get help from someone who is NOT a patient, but IS a caregiver.

 

If I am not a patient, I can not posses, tranfer, distribute ect....

UNLESS I am a Caregiver.

[+RevThad]

but rev that part of the law is redundent becuase a patient can not sell pot. so they must mean what i said

Unfortunately you are incorrect here as well, as the law states:

"Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances."

 

Meaning that it shall not be considered as the sale of a controlled substance. This language is necessary for a few reasons, it does not setup a battle between state and feds, it allows for compensation to be paid and received without it being considered a violation of other laws. This is just another protection built into the law.

 

You have yet to rebut my earlier points, or to answer the logical problems with your reading of the law. So lets lay those out really quickly for you, please note I haven't even touched on the protections offered by the AD yet.

 

Are patients and caregivers allowed to engage in medical use as defined by the law? YES, not only are they allowed to do so, they are presumed to be engaged in medical use, if they register and are not in possession of more than prescribed by the act.

 

What is medical use as defined by the law? "(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

 

Why are you not suggesting that a caregiver or patient must also make their own paraphernalia as well, this seems to be a strange parsing of the words by you.

 

I also await your explanation of why a limit would be necessary to put in the law, if it is redundant.

[+RevThad]

a caregiver CANNOT engage in "medical use" of marijuana (unless said cg is a patient). a cg merely ASSISTS a registered qualifying patient with their "medical use."

 

once again... my humble opinion

"d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:"

[Hempcheff]

Primary Caregivers - [section 4(e)] "Primary caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marijuana and who has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs

 

 

Compensation - [section 3(g)] 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.

 

 

that is where the term medical use is. see the words

 

 

Registered Qualifying Patients - [section 3(f)]. "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition. Must have a registry identification card, or legal equivalent if department fails to issue. [section 9(b)].

 

see no words no were thats the law black and white not gray.

 

 

your right, "primary" caregiver...... Primary, by definition, implies other non primary caregivers are involve, also i believe that as a patient you are your own CG, technically

[DT61]

I think time will prove out just how good this law actually is.

Sure, law enforcement and courts do not like it, but that is because it was written to afford each and every single patient the best protection possible, with a second to caregivers.

The broader issues are at play recently - but the law is not poorly written, it is poorly interpreted and at each turn and twist the judge and prosecutors find that the patient (and often times the caregiver) are fully protected from their clutches - as it should be.

[the green leaf farmacy]

Unfortunately you are incorrect here as well, as the law states:

"Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances."

 

Meaning that it shall not be considered as the sale of a controlled substance. This language is necessary for a few reasons, it does not setup a battle between state and feds, it allows for compensation to be paid and received without it being considered a violation of other laws. This is just another protection built into the law.

 

You have yet to rebut my earlier points, or to answer the logical problems with your reading of the law. So lets lay those out really quickly for you, please note I haven't even touched on the protections offered by the AD yet.

 

Are patients and caregivers allowed to engage in medical use as defined by the law? YES, not only are they allowed to do so, they are presumed to be engaged in medical use, if they register and are not in possession of more than prescribed by the act.

 

What is medical use as defined by the law? "(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

 

Why are you not suggesting that a caregiver or patient must also make their own paraphernalia as well, this seems to be a strange parsing of the words by you.

 

I also await your explanation of why a limit would be necessary to put in the law, if it is redundant.

question rev can a patient grow for another patient??

[chi_guy]

These are all good points that we have all touched on, with the exception of greenleaf's pharm's posts. It seems he is too proud of his own interpretations to accept logic. I also want to touch on something new that we haven't discussed yet and that is going back to the initial ballot language. This helps us understand what the legislation intended. This is what voters saw:

 

INITIATION OF LEGISLATION

An initiation of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana;

to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of

registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to

impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promulgation

of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of

this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for

violations of this act.

 

I emphasize the part that reads "and to provide penalties for violations of this act"

If p2p were illegal why was there no penalty for it written into the act. The only penalty for selling marihuana is to those who do not have medical purpose for using it.

[the green leaf farmacy]

These are all good points that we have all touched on, with the exception of greenleaf's pharm's posts. It seems he is too proud of his own interpretations to accept logic. I also want to touch on something new that we haven't discussed yet and that is going back to the initial ballot language. This helps us understand what the legislation intended. This is what voters saw:

 

INITIATION OF LEGISLATION

An initiation of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana;

to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of

registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to

impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promulgation

of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of

this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for

violations of this act.

 

I emphasize the part that reads "and to provide penalties for violations of this act"

If p2p were illegal why was there no penalty for it written into the act. The only penalty for selling marihuana is to those who do not have medical purpose for using it.

the legality of patient to patient is not in the law and green leaf farmacy points and interpitations of the law are just as valied as any body on this form they have been backed up buy the law.

[peanutbutter]

These are all good points that we have all touched on, with the exception of greenleaf's pharm's posts. It seems he is too proud of his own interpretations to accept logic. I also want to touch on something new that we haven't discussed yet and that is going back to the initial ballot language. This helps us understand what the legislation intended. This is what voters saw:

 

INITIATION OF LEGISLATION

An initiation of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana;

to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of

registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to

impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promulgation

of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of

this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for

violations of this act.

 

I emphasize the part that reads "and to provide penalties for violations of this act"

If p2p were illegal why was there no penalty for it written into the act. The only penalty for selling marihuana is to those who do not have medical purpose for using it.

 

The other penalty included in this law is against government employees. When they violate this law, they are supposed to go to jail.

 

This is a law about what they CAN NOT do rather than what we can do.