Can We Sell To Unregistered Patients

[thatoneartist]

make your points now, they will be heard.

 

Can we sell to patents or caregivers other then the ones listed under our caregiving? I believe the act says patients are allowed to get compensated for assisting other patients...right?

[me7784]

make your points now, they will be heard.

 

Can we sell to patents or caregivers other then the ones listed under our caregiving? I believe the act says patients are allowed to get compensated for assisting other patients...right?

 

 

Good luck with this one.There are many varying opinions!!

[Ionic7]

No you cannot "sell" you can do patient to patient transfers which said person could give you a donation, but none of it is a "sale"

[phaquetoo]

Grey area!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[+420Atheist]

There is a lot of discussion on this site about this issue. You are likely to learn more by looking in those threads. I don't expect any new information on that issue until the Oakland cases get settled.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Easy one. We think it's legal, 'they' don't. It will be decided in court. The important thing is you could easily find a person with a badge that thinks it is illegal.

No sense in playing lawyer junior and chopping the wording all up to make a junior lawyer point. Just know it's a point of contention that will eventually be decided in court. Until then, be very careful.

[peanutbutter]

make your points now, they will be heard.

 

Can we sell to patents or caregivers other then the ones listed under our caregiving? I believe the act says patients are allowed to get compensated for assisting other patients...right?

 

WOW several questions were asked at the same time.

 

The name of the thread was can we sell to unregistered patients.

 

Then inside the thread the question became can we sell to someone not registered to ourselves.

 

In addition the persons split into "can we sell to a patient that is not ours" and "can we sell to a caregiver?"

 

Then another question added about patients allowed to be compensated for assisting other patients.

 

Section 8 of the law covers both patients and caregivers that are unregistered. If they are unregistered, then there is no relationship between parties existing within the MDCH database. This is untested in courts yet.

 

So can you sell to such a person? yes. Can you be arrested for doing so? yes. Can you be convicted for doing so? depends on the court.

 

Can you sell to a registered caregiver? That's a couple issues tied into one question:

 

First can you sell?

"not for profit" sales are allowed under CA law. I don't believe "not for profit" is a phrase within our law.

The concept of "not for profit" is understood by some to mean that cannabis may only be given away free of charge.

That would be a great misunderstanding of what "not for profit" means. Both CA law and Michigan law anticipate that money will be exchanged for the medicine.

 

Simply naming the transaction "not for profit" clearly does not mean there is no money involved. And it is not an element in the Michigan law.

 

Second part "to a registered caregiver?" The caregiver is clearly allowed to acquire medicine for their patients. It is part of what the law calls "medical use."

 

This is what the Michigan law itself calls "medical use":

Section 3 (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.

 

There is a split within our community as to weather "acquisition" protects just the person doing the purchasing or both sides of the transaction. I hold that it is the action itself that is legal as long as the end beneficiary is a legal patient. Since it is a legal action, then the seller would be protected also.

 

There is a false statement that has been circulated. That statement is that it is illegal to "obtain" the cannabis from any source at all. This statement has been stated by the MDCH itself. The law clearly says that to acquire cannabis is one of the things that constitute "medical use." I've started to attempt requesting that the MDCH remove the false information from it's website.

 

Then there is that word "transfer" that is a part of "medical use."

 

"Transfer" is different than "acquisition." Acquire involves one person. A person could find a field of wild cannabis growing in some remote location. The person found a way to acquire. To acquire is to receive. To "transfer" requires at least two people. The person doing the "transfer" has the medicine and is passing the material to another.

 

We here have debated the idea of the legality of patient to patient transfers for a long time. The topic has been beaten to death on many threads. Given the nature of your question, it wouldn't surprise me if this thread turned into another one of those. Most posters here believe that patient to patient transfers are legal. Someday the courts might decide how to read the word "transfer."

 

Some folks have split the definition of "medical use" in their understanding. That some things within the list of "medical use" apply to patients, others apply to caregivers and some apply to both. If every item on the list applies to both parties, then any person that can legally have the cannabis could legally transfer to any other person that is legally qualified. If the list is intended to be split, then it hasn't been done yet. That requires the courts to do the splitting.

 

One understanding generates a "gray area." Something that the courts of congress has to sort out. That would involve splitting the list up.

 

The other understand does not generate a "gray area." That understanding would leave the list intact and would apply to both patients and caregivers. This understanding requires no further clarification by the courts or congress.

 

If you assume the law is filled with "gray areas" then you will find them. It is easy to misunderstand if you don't want to understand to begin with. Those that promote the idea of "gray areas" being rampant in the law, are those that wish to change the law we have.

 

It would seem logical that courts would try to find the understanding that eliminates "gray areas" instead of accepting an understanding that causes a "gray area."

 

Shameless plug -> http://www.peanutbuttersoil.com/news--info.html

 

"Medical use" is not used for section 8 of the law. That would be the section called the "affirmative defense."

However each of the actions that make up "medical use" in all of the rest of the law are listed again in the AD section.

 

The difference between the two is that "medical use" is what a registered patient or caregiver is allowed to do. In the case of the AD section, these actions are what a unregistered patient OR CAREGIVER is enabled to do. I should be noted that this is a defense for court. The rest of the law is intended to prevent any court case at all. Therefore the rest of the law applies outside of the court. For instance in the office of the PA where the PA learns it is illegal to prosecute the case.

 

Currently many courts are applying the limit standards of section 4, the immunity section, to section 8 the trial section. Hopefully this error will go away. There are no fixed limits within section 8. Twelve plants and 2.5 ounces has nothing to do with section 8. Many courts have concluded that a patient must have the ID card to use the AD section of the law. This is an element that is very important to Bob and Torey's case. The COA seems to have ruled that you don't have to have the ID card to be covered by the AD. Thanks to Bob and Torey ..

[peanutbutter]

Grey area!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

If you want it to be a gray area then it is .. to you.

 

It is easy to be confused, if you want to be.

[Hempcheff]

If you want it to be a gray area then it is .. to you.

 

It is easy to be confused, if you want to be.

 

thanks PB!

[peanutbutter]

thanks PB!

 

You KNOW how easily I can become confused

[Guest Happy Guy]

WOW several questions were asked at the same time.The name of the thread was can we sell to unregistered patients.Then inside the thread the question became can we sell to someone not registered to ourselves.In addition the persons split into "can we sell to a patient that is not ours" and "can we sell to a caregiver?"Then another question added about patients allowed to be compensated for assisting other patients.Section 8 of the law covers both patients and caregivers that are unregistered. If they are unregistered, then there is no relationship between parties existing within the MDCH database. This is untested in courts yet.So can you sell to such a person? yes. Can you be arrested for doing so? yes. Can you be convicted for doing so? depends on the court. Can you sell to a registered caregiver? That's a couple issues tied into one question:First can you sell?"not for profit" sales are allowed under CA law. I don't believe "not for profit" is a phrase within our law.The concept of "not for profit" is understood by some to mean that cannabis may only be given away free of charge.That would be a great misunderstanding of what "not for profit" means. Both CA law and Michigan law anticipate that money will be exchanged for the medicine.Simply naming the transaction "not for profit" clearly does not mean there is no money involved. And it is not an element in the Michigan law.Second part "to a registered caregiver?" The caregiver is clearly allowed to acquire medicine for their patients. It is part of what the law calls "medical use."This is what the Michigan law itself calls "medical use":Section 3 (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.There is a split within our community as to weather "acquisition" protects just the person doing the purchasing or both sides of the transaction. I hold that it is the action itself that is legal as long as the end beneficiary is a legal patient. Since it is a legal action, then the seller would be protected also.There is a false statement that has been circulated. That statement is that it is illegal to "obtain" the cannabis from any source at all. This statement has been stated by the MDCH itself. The law clearly says that to acquire cannabis is one of the things that constitute "medical use." I've started to attempt requesting that the MDCH remove the false information from it's website.Then there is that word "transfer" that is a part of "medical use." "Transfer" is different than "acquisition." Acquire involves one person. A person could find a field of wild cannabis growing in some remote location. The person found a way to acquire. To acquire is to receive. To "transfer" requires at least two people. The person doing the "transfer" has the medicine and is passing the material to another.We here have debated the idea of the legality of patient to patient transfers for a long time. The topic has been beaten to death on many threads. Given the nature of your question, it wouldn't surprise me if this thread turned into another one of those. Most posters here believe that patient to patient transfers are legal. Someday the courts might decide how to read the word "transfer."Some folks have split the definition of "medical use" in their understanding. That some things within the list of "medical use" apply to patients, others apply to caregivers and some apply to both. If every item on the list applies to both parties, then any person that can legally have the cannabis could legally transfer to any other person that is legally qualified. If the list is intended to be split, then it hasn't been done yet. That requires the courts to do the splitting.One understanding generates a "gray area." Something that the courts of congress has to sort out. That would involve splitting the list up.The other understand does not generate a "gray area." That understanding would leave the list intact and would apply to both patients and caregivers. This understanding requires no further clarification by the courts or congress.If you assume the law is filled with "gray areas" then you will find them. It is easy to misunderstand if you don't want to understand to begin with. Those that promote the idea of "gray areas" being rampant in the law, are those that wish to change the law we have. It would seem logical that courts would try to find the understanding that eliminates "gray areas" instead of accepting an understanding that causes a "gray area."Shameless plug -> http://www.peanutbuttersoil.com/news--info.html"Medical use" is not used for section 8 of the law. That would be the section called the "affirmative defense."However each of the actions that make up "medical use" in all of the rest of the law are listed again in the AD section.The difference between the two is that "medical use" is what a registered patient or caregiver is allowed to do. In the case of the AD section, these actions are what a unregistered patient OR CAREGIVER is enabled to do. I should be noted that this is a defense for court. The rest of the law is intended to prevent any court case at all. Therefore the rest of the law applies outside of the court. For instance in the office of the PA where the PA learns it is illegal to prosecute the case.Currently many courts are applying the limit standards of section 4, the immunity section, to section 8 the trial section. Hopefully this error will go away. There are no fixed limits within section 8. Twelve plants and 2.5 ounces has nothing to do with section 8. Many courts have concluded that a patient must have the ID card to use the AD section of the law. This is an element that is very important to Bob and Torey's case. The COA seems to have ruled that you don't have to have the ID card to be covered by the AD. Thanks to Bob and Torey ..

PB QUOTE: There is a split within our community as to weather "acquisition" protects just the person doing the purchasing or both sides of the transaction. I hold that it is the action itself that is legal as long as the end beneficiary is a legal patient. Since it is a legal action, then the seller would be protected also

 

No split, unless you are including the prosecutors as part of our community. No sense pointing fingers and causing further division describing a split that is not there. It doesn't matter what we think anyway. We just need to wait for the courts to answer on this. I'm sure everyone in 'our community' is on the same side of this. Some are just more cautious with giving advice as to what is safe.

[DenturesLost]

There is a split within our community as to weather "acquisition" protects just the person doing the purchasing or both sides of the transaction. I hold that it is the action itself that is legal as long as the end beneficiary is a legal patient. Since it is a legal action, then the seller would be protected also.

 

That's a very thin argument. The legal status of the caregiver (the one doing the acquiring) cannot just rub off on the seller.

It's perfectly legal for me to go buy a 5th of vodka at the corner market for any purpose. It isn't legal for the seller to sell that vodka unless the seller is licensed. In other words, one side of the transaction can be legal while the other is not.

[+420Atheist]

If you want it to be a gray area then it is .. to you.

 

It is easy to be confused, if you want to be.

 

I would say it is easy to make compelling arguments for both sides. If it was not all these cases would be settled by now.

[+Annnie]

Terry Provosts Case in Kalkaska County which was just very recently decided may shed light onto this subject.

[peanutbutter]

That's a very thin argument. The legal status of the caregiver (the one doing the acquiring) cannot just rub off on the seller.

It's perfectly legal for me to go buy a 5th of vodka at the corner market for any purpose. It isn't legal for the seller to sell that vodka unless the seller is licensed. In other words, one side of the transaction can be legal while the other is not.

 

It is legal for me to purchase moonshine?

 

In your example, you may purchase the fifth of vodka. If it is a legal purchase then the sale was legal. Correct?

[peanutbutter]

PB QUOTE: There is a split within our community as to weather "acquisition" protects just the person doing the purchasing or both sides of the transaction. I hold that it is the action itself that is legal as long as the end beneficiary is a legal patient. Since it is a legal action, then the seller would be protected also

 

No split, unless you are including the prosecutors as part of our community. No sense pointing fingers and causing further division describing a split that is not there. It doesn't matter what we think anyway. We just need to wait for the courts to answer on this. I'm sure everyone in 'our community' is on the same side of this. Some are just more cautious with giving advice as to what is safe.

LOL .. just look at the next post after yours ..

[peanutbutter]

I would say it is easy to make compelling arguments for both sides. If it was not all these cases would be settled by now.

 

Oh please .. our enemies want the issue as confused as possible. They work hard at it attempting bring as much confusion as possible into the discussion.

 

OK DL .. I'll save you the time. Many times I seem to confuse the issues also.

[+420Atheist]

Oh please .. our enemies want the issue as confused as possible. They work hard at it attempting bring as much confusion as possible into the discussion.

 

What our enemies want does not change the premise that compelling arguments can be made for both sides.

[DenturesLost]

 

In your example, you may purchase the fifth of vodka. If it is a legal purchase then the sale was legal. Correct?

No, not correct. A retail distributor needs a license to sell alcohol. If they don't have that license but set up shop anyway then the purchasers, as long as they don't know about the non-license issue, are not committing a crime buy purchasing. The lement of intent is necessary.

 

If I buy stolen goods from someone at their garage sale and I don't know they were stolen my end of the transaction is legal but the seller's isn't. In other words if the seller knew they were stolen but I didn't then I don't have the intent necessary to be charge with R&C stolen goods.

[Wayne'sWorld]

Someone should compile all the critism of our new law on this forum and present them along with all the newspaper articles quoting MM defense attorney's, prosecutor's,judges, legislator's, municipal council's, every day voter's, and law enforcement. Then submit all of this to every member of the new Republican Tea Party Michigan Congress for consideration of future legislation intended to "clarify, strengthen, and broaden access" to MM. Can't imagine if all these voices are crying for it that they wouldn't feel compelled to act. Unfriendly amendments? Well that's the chance you take to get a clear, understandable law.

 

Everybody with me?

[peanutbutter]

No, not correct. A retail distributor needs a license to sell alcohol. If they don't have that license but set up shop anyway then the purchasers, as long as they don't know about the non-license issue, are not committing a crime buy purchasing. The lement of intent is necessary.

 

If I buy stolen goods from someone at their garage sale and I don't know they were stolen my end of the transaction is legal but the seller's isn't. In other words if the seller knew they were stolen but I didn't then I don't have the intent necessary to be charge with R&C stolen goods.

 

I believe that the ability of the patient and caregiver to acquire is distinctly allowed, in the mmj law.

 

No need for the intent element. As long as it is for medical purpose.

[brbud]

Can We Sell To Unregistered Patients

NO

 

lets give this newborn law a chance to get on its feet before we jam on a set o tennis shoes and tell it which way WE want it to run.

this bout the patient right to grow/obtain own med...everyone else looking for the buck

Daisy Ann Confused

[DenturesLost]

I believe that the ability of the patient and caregiver to acquire is distinctly allowed, in the mmj law.

 

No need for the intent element. As long as it is for medical purpose.

First of all, sure there is intent involved. The intent needs to be for treating the condition. You just said no need for intent and then followed it with a sentence INDICATING the NEED for intent?!?!

 

If I were a caregiver and my patient had 2.5 oz sitting at his house and told me, "that is all I need to get me through until my card expires," then my buying more for the ostensible use of that patient would be illegal. What you are suggesting is that my intent controls the legality of the transaction from the seller's standpoint. In other words if I am a legal buyer then he becomes a legal seller. So what if I am an illegal buyer as above? Then he becomes an illegal seller? That makes no sense.

 

The intent necessary is the intent to commit the crime. The seller has no basis for selling when he is not qualified to sell just like the liquor license example. Therefore he has intent to commit a crime.

[DLD420]

Someone should compile all the critism of our new law on this forum and present them along with all the newspaper articles quoting MM defense attorney's, prosecutor's,judges, legislator's, municipal council's, every day voter's, and law enforcement. Then submit all of this to every member of the new Republican Tea Party Michigan Congress for consideration of future legislation intended to "clarify, strengthen, and broaden access" to MM. Can't imagine if all these voices are crying for it that they wouldn't feel compelled to act. Unfriendly amendments? Well that's the chance you take to get a clear, understandable law.

 

Everybody with me?

In a word or two Hell no. Let the gov, any gov, tea bagger or lefty play with the MMMA and we will lose it all.Between Big business (Pharma) and the Government I think I mught just go back to the old way of staying below the radar and not getting renewed again.

[Hempcheff]

First of all, sure there is intent involved. The intent needs to be for treating the condition. You just said no need for intent and then followed it with a sentence INDICATING the NEED for intent?!?!

 

If I were a caregiver and my patient had 2.5 oz sitting at his house and told me, "that is all I need to get me through until my card expires," then my buying more for the ostensible use of that patient would be illegal. What you are suggesting is that my intent controls the legality of the transaction from the seller's standpoint. In other words if I am a legal buyer then he becomes a legal seller. So what if I am an illegal buyer as above? Then he becomes an illegal seller? That makes no sense.

 

The intent necessary is the intent to commit the crime. The seller has no basis for selling when he is not qualified to sell just like the liquor license example. Therefore he has intent to commit a crime.

 

the caregiver is still allowed to posess 2.5 ounces at any given time, whether the patient needs it or not. He is allowed to provide an "uninterrupted supply"

 

example,

 

If I were a caregiver and my patient had 2.5 oz sitting at his house and told me, "that is all I need to get me through until my card expires," 2 days later there is a fire/robbery and the patient no longer has meds. you, as the caregiver in your scenario say "sorry, you told my that was all you needed, ill start growing a plant for you, come back in 12 weeks."

 

i just dont see the logic there