50 replies to this topic

[Eric L. VanDussen]

This Court of Appeals opinion was released yesterday: http://coa.courts.mi..._303575.OPN.PDF

The opinion says, in part, that: "McQueen clearly compels the result in this case – the medical use of marihuana does not include patient-to-patient sales of marihuana."

Here are some articles pertaining to this case that ran previously:

http://www.alpenanow...y-to-open-soon/

http://www.alpenanow...ana-dispensary/

http://www.alpenanow...n-open-for-now/

http://www.alpenanow...-patient-sales/

[Wild Bill]

Chip, chip, chip.

[bobandtorey]

the medical use of marihuana does not include patient-to-patient sales of marihuana."
did anyone think it was going to say anytime different

[solabeirtan]

My summary was gleened off the top of my head not realizing this was a dispensary case. For what its worth :

Yet patients are allowed to aquire meds as needed to relieve their conditions, legally. Even from the Black Market! It's just illegal to help your fellow patient. I think I get it: What goes on in the privacy of ones house is a no no under the state and federal law. OK fine I can live with that ? NOT !

Edited by solabeirtan, 11 April 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[amish4ganja]

I assume then that patient-to-patient transfers (without compensation) are legal? The court only believes that sales do not comply with the medical use of marijuana.

[Hayduke]

To assume this would be questionable. Until they rule on a transfer without compensation, doing that very thing could make you a test case. I can't imagine why anyone would want to put themselves in that situation. Just because they did not rule on that does not make it legal. It just means they did not rule on that type of transfer. I for one certainly hope they would find it legal. But I would not be willing to proclaim that without some more information.

[restlesslegs]

I assume then that patient-to-patient transfers (without compensation) are legal? The court only believes that sales do not comply with the medical use of marijuana.

Judge Michael Mack issued a ruling late Thursday, that says legal patients can give or transfer marijuana to another patient, but they can’t sell it to one another.

[GregS]

To assume this would be questionable. Until they rule on a transfer without compensation, doing that very thing could make you a test case. I can't imagine why anyone would want to put themselves in that situation. Just because they did not rule on that does not make it legal. It just means they did not rule on that type of transfer. I for one certainly hope they would find it legal. But I would not be willing to proclaim that without some more information.

I really don't think that compensation is prohibited. If someone will be so kind to point out the language that does, I will thank them.

[Ezrah]

This Court of Appeals opinion was released yesterday: http://coa.courts.mi..._303575.OPN.PDF

The opinion says, in part, that: "McQueen clearly compels the result in this case – the medical use of marihuana does not include patient-to-patient sales of marihuana."

Here are some articles pertaining to this case that ran previously:

http://www.alpenanow.com/index.php/2011/02/18/alpena%E2%80%99s-1st-medical-marijuana-dispensary-to-open-soon/

http://www.alpenanow.com/index.php/2011/03/15/a-%E2%80%9Cblack%E2%80%9D-day-for-alpena%E2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-dispensary/

http://www.alpenanow.com/index.php/2011/03/17/local-medical-marijuana-dispensaryto-remain-open-for-now/

http://www.alpenanow.com/index.php/2011/03/25/alpena-dispensary-must-stop-patient-to-patient-sales/

Ok I read this a few times, MK what are your thoughts on this and what does this ruling mean to the community and how we can support one another?

[restlesslegs]

Compensation is only legal for caregivers. Patients whether they grow for themselves or not are not considered a caregiver. Patient to patient transfer without compensation or sale is legal. Patient to patient transfers are illegal if there is any compensation involved.

[JustDanMI]

Judge Michael Mack issued a ruling late Thursday, that says legal patients can give or transfer marijuana to another patient, but they can’t sell it to one another.

Well, that's good to hear. I know the COA vs. Mcqueen, and than again in COA vs. HealthCenter that they never addressed patient to patient transfers. In the McQueen case the court of appeals brought it up, but declined to make a decision on it. You can see it on the last paragraph of the 14th page of the opinion.

As far as the caregiver being compensated from a patient, they said that was allowed, as it's clearly written in the law. BUT, they did not agree and thus decided to not answer if that meant a caregiver could be compensated from ANY patient, or if it meant they could only be compensated from only their connected patient through the registry. Which you can read on the second to last paragraph of the 14th page of the opinion.

And Greg, for your request as to where it shows compensation is prohibited from patient to patient, it's on the 3rd from last paragraph of the 14th page where it states that.

Keep in mind though everyone, that this case was accepted to be heard by the Michigan Supreme Court. So all of this could change once they have their say on it. I'll post a link to where you can read the opinion for yourselves. And the MACC brief is an interesting read as well, and probably why they were personally requested to submit briefs along with the Attorney General on this case. Check it all out here:

http://www.bigmacc.com/content/people-v-mcqueen-and-taylor

[JustDanMI]

Double Post

Edited by JustDanMI, 11 April 2012 - 11:33 PM.

[Zombiefied]

Where is the law banning the sale of cannabis or the sale of medical cannabis?

[JustDanMI]

Where is the law banning the sale of cannabis or the sale of medical cannabis?

Ummmm, did you read my previous message? If you click that link above that I left at the end of my last message, it will take you to links to a page where you can select the Court of Appeals Opinion and read it there, where I described in my last message.

[Zombiefied]

Ummmm, did you read my previous message? If you click that link above that I left at the end of my last message, it will take you to links to a page where you can select the Court of Appeals Opinion and read it there, where I described in my last message.

I am asking for the law that they used to come to the conclusion that the sale of cannabis is illegal. Not that the COA ruled FALSELY on it. There is not 1 law in Michigan's Public Health Code or the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act that says the sale of cannabis is illegal. The Corrupt Oakland Coutny COA is just after there and bill schuette's personal agenda and not basing anything off reality or common sense or LAW....

[CaveatLector]

Compensation is only legal for caregivers. Patients whether they grow for themselves or not are not considered a caregiver. Patient to patient transfer without compensation or sale is legal. Patient to patient transfers are illegal if there is any compensation involved.

Uhhh, no!
P2p without remuneration has not been ruled on. That does not make it legal.

My feeling is that if p2p w/o remuneration goes to the COA then it will be ruled illegal on the same grounds as p2p w/ remuneration. Remuneration is what people are getting stuck on. They are saying that no where in the law or rules is "selling" made illegal. I believe that the "sale" is neither here nor there. "Sale" came along for the ride. If I tell you that it is illegal to "sell" your cocaine that would be a true statement. However, it neglects the obvious which is that it is also illegal to transfer it without remuneration.

The fact that the COA squeezed p2p w/ remuneration through the funnel and made it come out the other side as illegal tells me they will do the same for a transfer w/o remuneration. So if you want to be the test case then, by all means, make your transfer in front of Jessica Cooper and generate a case. Otherwise STFU and stop telling people that p2p w/o remuneration is legal!

The fact that you can arrive at a place where p2p could be seen as legal, by going through the definition of "medical use," is what people are hanging their hats on when saying it is legal. The fact that you can go through a maze in the law to arrive at that conclusion is the problem, in and of itself. The law does not explicitly state that p2p is allowable. The idea that it is legal is implicit in the law based on layperson interpretation of the law. What the COA is saying is that the interpretation being used to arrive at that conclusion is incorrect. Boiling it down, they are saying if the law wanted to allow for p2p then it would have been explicit and that you wouldn't have to jump through a hoop to get there. The COA looks at the intent of the drafters, in this case the people. What did the people intend when they voted on the law? Well to know that you have to read the ballot language. The ballot language didn't explicitly OR implicitly allow for p2p transfers. Therein lies the problem. To know why the COA rules the way it did you have to understand basic principles of statutory interpretation that are required to be used by judges when interpreting law.

With all that said, don't kill the messenger. I happen to believe that the reasoning used by the COA was very bad and probably incorrect. However, I think if they had used a different reasoning, such as what I described above, then it would have been acceptable within the bounds of proper statutory interpretation. Either way the outcome would be the same. Do I like it? No! I'm simply explaining things. One disclaimer though, I haven't read the McQueen opinion since it came out so I may be foggy on the details. I'm simply explaining the idea behind statutory interpretation and the reasons why the COA could rule p2p is illegal even if there is a way it could be squeezed out in the current law.

Edited by CaveatLector, 12 April 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[restlesslegs]

This was the latest ruling and until it goes to the Supreme court it is and can be used as a defense by a lawyer in court.

Judge Michael Mack issued a ruling late Thursday, that says legal patients can give or transfer marijuana to another patient, but they can’t sell it to one another.

This is soooooooooo old arguing about how to interpret the law. You say tomatoe............ K?

Uhhh, no!
P2p without remuneration has not been ruled on. That does not make it legal.

My feeling is that if p2p w/o remuneration goes to the COA then it will be ruled illegal on the same grounds as p2p w/ remuneration. Remuneration is what people are getting stuck on. They are saying that no where in the law or rules is "selling" made illegal. I believe that the "sale" is neither here nor there. "Sale" came along for the ride. If I tell you that it is illegal to "sell" your cocaine that would be a true statement. However, it neglects the obvious which is that it is also illegal to transfer it without remuneration.

The fact that the COA squeezed p2p w/ remuneration through the funnel and made it come out the other side as illegal tells me they will do the same for a transfer w/o remuneration. So if you want to be the test case then, by all means, make your transfer in front of Jessica Cooper and generate a case. Otherwise STFU and stop telling people that p2p w/o remuneration is legal!

The fact that you can arrive at a place where p2p could be seen as legal, by going through the definition of "medical use," is what people are hanging their hats on when saying it is legal. The fact that you can go through a maze in the law to arrive at that conclusion is the problem, in and of itself. The law does not explicitly state that p2p is allowable. The idea that it is legal is implicit in the law based on layperson interpretation of the law. What the COA is saying is that the interpretation being used to arrive at that conclusion is incorrect. Boiling it down, they are saying if the law wanted to allow for p2p then it would have been explicit and that you wouldn't have to jump through a hoop to get there. The COA looks at the intent of the drafters, in this case the people. What did the people intend when they voted on the law? Well to know that you have to read the ballot language. The ballot language didn't explicitly OR implicitly allow for p2p transfers. Therein lies the problem. To know why the COA rules the way it did you have to understand basic principles of statutory interpretation that are required to be used by judges when interpreting law.

With all that said, don't kill the messenger. I happen to believe that the reasoning used by the COA was very bad and probably incorrect. However, I think if they had used a different reasoning, such as what I described above, then it would have been acceptable within the bounds of proper statutory interpretation. Either way the outcome would be the same. Do I like it? No! I'm simply explaining things. One disclaimer though, I haven't read the McQueen opinion since it came out so I may be foggy on the details. I'm simply explaining the idea behind statutory interpretation and the reasons why the COA could rule p2p is illegal even if there is a way it could be squeezed out in the current law.

[restlesslegs]

I am asking for the law that they used to come to the conclusion that the sale of cannabis is illegal. Not that the COA ruled FALSELY on it. There is not 1 law in Michigan's Public Health Code or the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act that says the sale of cannabis is illegal. The Corrupt Oakland Coutny COA is just after there and bill schuette's personal agenda and not basing anything off reality or common sense or LAW....

I am not quite understanding you on this. It clearly states "sale" is not legal in a few of the court cases that have been decided on. Can you tell me exactly what you mean? I've seen this written in several areas now.

[CaveatLector]

This was the latest ruling and until it goes to the Supreme court it is and can be used as a defense by a lawyer in court.

Judge Michael Mack issued a ruling late Thursday, that says legal patients can give or transfer marijuana to another patient, but they can’t sell it to one another.

This is soooooooooo old arguing about how to interpret the law. You say tomatoe............ K?

You're a fool. Judge Mack is a circuit court judge. His rulings are NOT precedent setting and CANNOT be used in any other case as binding precedent to affect another ruling. Put another way, his rulings DO NOT CREATE LAW!!! Any judge in any other circuit court across the state can rule opposite what he ruled. Heck, even HE, in a different case, could rule opposite what he ruled. K?

[Dilligaf]

I am not quite understanding you on this. It clearly states "sale" is not legal in a few of the court cases that have been decided on. Can you tell me exactly what you mean? I've seen this written in several areas now.

There is no law in Michigan stating MJ sales are illegal, only delivery is illegal and our law changed that. The COA made up laws in order to justify its ruling. REGARDLESS THEIR DECISION IS LAW

Mike