Jump to content

Donation $ For Bho


JMedical

Recommended Posts

I think just about everyone here realizes the weasel words used to pretend that a sale isn't really a sale.

 

The fact is, a CG transferring cannabis to his/her patients in exchange for compensation is not considered a sale under the law, but it still has all the parameters of a sale, just like the 'donation' weasel words some use.

 

It's like a huge collective 'wink and nod' and even the MMMAct acknowledges that. Pure silliness, but I guess it's what needed to be done to keep the Feds at bay.

 

Well, right now, the COA opinion rules, and that COA opinion allows for a CG to transfer to his registered five patients and to be compensated for this. The compensation specifically, by law, is not a sale. It is impossible for a CG to sell MMJ to one of his five patients...because the law says there is no such thing...no such thing as a sale between a CG and his five patients.

 

Transactions from p2p, p2CG, CG2CG, and CG to not-one-of-his-five can constitute a sale, if money or anything else of value is involved. Too many people think that using the word, "donation" suddenly makes all these transactions all better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, right now, the COA opinion rules, and that COA opinion allows for a CG to transfer to his registered five patients and to be compensated for this. The compensation specifically, by law, is not a sale. It is impossible for a CG to sell MMJ to one of his five patients...because the law says there is no such thing...no such thing as a sale between a CG and his five patients.

 

Transactions from p2p, p2CG, CG2CG, and CG to not-one-of-his-five can constitute a sale, if money or anything else of value is involved. Too many people think that using the word, "donation" suddenly makes all these transactions all better.

 

That's exactly my point. A 'transfer' between a CG and their PT isn't considered a sale, but well all know darn well it is.

 

If the law said the sky wasn't blue, would you believe the law or your lying eyes?

 

I think the silly notion that a transfer between a CG and their PT isn't a sale is actually what is bringing all this other 'donation' silliness from everyone else. They see that the law is based completely upon ridiculous weasel words and figure if the law allows for one sort of weasel around 'sales', it will allow for another.

 

They may be right, or they might be wrong, but the fact that the law itself is based in this legal silliness is likely why we have so much of it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think just about everyone here realizes the weasel words used to pretend that a sale isn't really a sale.

 

The fact is, a CG transferring cannabis to his/her patients in exchange for compensation is not considered a sale under the law, but it still has all the parameters of a sale, just like the 'donation' weasel words some use.

 

It's like a huge collective 'wink and nod' and even the MMMAct acknowledges that. Pure silliness, but I guess it's what needed to be done to keep the Feds at bay.

 

Everyone here realizes that? Do they? Did you take a poll? And what of the people who come here later? Should we keep them safe or assume they will catch on?

 

Secondly, if everyone "realizes the weasel words" then why use them? Using your logic the law tells us it is not a sale. So if THE LAW says it isn't a sale what harm is there in asking how much people SELL it for?

 

Thirdly, you are interpreting the law based on your understanding of it and not what every judge will agree with. The law states:

 

e) 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.

 

Why did the drafter write that the compensation shall not constitute a sale of "controlled substances?" The drafter more easily could have written "marihuana" in place of "controlled substances." So why didn't they? If I am interpreting that I would assume that the reason they wrote controlled substances was to try to protect you from harm involved in selling something generally considered a controlled substance. The drafter did not say it isn't a sale. The drafter wrote a sale of controlled substances. You cannot parse the act or that sentence. There is a huge difference between what is in the law and what COULD be in the law. Consider this rewrite:

 

e) 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 a sale but is, instead, compensation for services.

 

Or consider this rewrite:

 

e) 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 marihuana.

 

Or this:

 

e) 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 a sale.

 

There is a myriad of ways the law COULD have been constructed. But it was constructed how it is currently. So you need to interpret within those parameters.

 

Pretending that the COA or MSC will interpret the act the way you do is sheer folly. For that reason I have posted in this thread in an effort to try and keep people safe. Because this interpretation isn't convenient for some they choose to attack rather than look at this issue with an eye towards safety. More power to you. I suppose this is just me pretending to be "holier than thou." Couldn't possibly be an effort to keep people safe . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point. A 'transfer' between a CG and their PT isn't considered a sale, but well all know darn well it is.

 

If the law said the sky wasn't blue, would you believe the law or your lying eyes?

 

I think the silly notion that a transfer between a CG and their PT isn't a sale is actually what is bringing all this other 'donation' silliness from everyone else. They see that the law is based completely upon ridiculous weasel words and figure if the law allows for one sort of weasel around 'sales', it will allow for another.

 

They may be right, or they might be wrong, but the fact that the law itself is based in this legal silliness is likely why we have so much of it in the first place.

 

I am trying to make the point clear that a transfer with compensation from a CG to one of his 5 patients is defined specifically and very differently than any other sort of transaction. People need to understand that. And contrary to what you posted, I don't think most people realize that this "donation" business is grade school legal advice at best.

 

Your analogy about the sky being blue doesn't apply. Laws define many words differently than Webster. "Primary Caregiver" for instance. The law says I'm a "caregiver." but I don't actually care about anyone - never have. Under your blue sky theory, I can't be a CG, because I just don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not 'pretending' about anything Cav. This is how a lot of people see things. I'm also not advocating stepping outside what the ridiculously silly Michigan COA and Supreme Court say about it.

 

I'm merely pointing out the fact that many folks within and without the MMMAct (rightly,imo)see these wrangled definitions as absolute absurdity and they will respond with equally absurd definitions of their own.

 

Maybe if we could get the court to deal with reality rather than legal effing abstractions that the general population see as lawyers engaging in lawyerly bullshyte to avoid making hard decisions we could eliminate some of those trying to weasel around it. The judiciary needs to set the tone and stop with the abstractions and start dealing with the reality regular people deal with daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should use 'legal sale'. People would understand better. Legal sale versus illegal sale. More weazel proof.

 

Why not just "compensation for cost?" That's what I've used since day 1. I figure it costs me X to produce cannabis. I can hand one of my patients some cannabis and say "My cost to produce this and deliver it to you is $450. I need to be compensated $450."

 

And if you look up the word "cost" in a layperson's dictionary, you'll see that it also includes one's time and also what was sacrificed...(the "opportunity cost" to put it in economic terms). My garden prevents me from working available overtime at my regular job. I could make another $12,000/year in overtime. That $12,000 I can't earn at my regular job is part of the cost of assisting patients with medical use of marijuana. Spread out over an annual harvest of, say 100 oz to keep it simple, my time per oz costs me about $120.

 

I think people need to just spit out the words the law protects us with, rather than find new ways to express what the law already says. The law allows "compensation for costs." Why invent new language to say the same thing? It would be harder for a judge to bring the hammer down if the transferring CG framed the transaction using the language provided in the law, rather than language that could be interpreted differently. Use the exact language in the law, and your statement can't be misconstrued or misinterpreted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not 'pretending' about anything Cav. This is how a lot of people see things. I'm also not advocating stepping outside what the ridiculously silly Michigan COA and Supreme Court say about it.

 

I'm merely pointing out the fact that many folks within and without the MMMAct (rightly,imo)see these wrangled definitions as absolute absurdity and they will respond with equally absurd definitions of their own.

 

Maybe if we could get the court to deal with reality rather than legal effing abstractions that the general population see as lawyers engaging in lawyerly bullshyte to avoid making hard decisions we could eliminate some of those trying to weasel around it. The judiciary needs to set the tone and stop with the abstractions and start dealing with the reality regular people deal with daily.

 

If the law were clear then there wouldn't be these issues. When issues exist in a law then it will be interpreted.

 

Everything has already been said in regard to this issue. Do as you please. Next time I go to the gas station I'll ask what donation they expect per gallon of gas. If they tell me that they expect any fixed amount then I suppose that won't be a donation, will it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the law were clear then there wouldn't be these issues. When issues exist in a law then it will be interpreted.

 

Everything has already been said in regard to this issue. Do as you please. Next time I go to the gas station I'll ask what donation they expect per gallon of gas. If they tell me that they expect any fixed amount then I suppose that won't be a donation, will it?

 

I'm not defending the use of the word 'donation'. Everything here doesn't have to be interpreted as a defense or an attack, you know.

 

Just pointing out the fact that the MMMAct and the Judiciary's collective interpretation of it are seen by many in our community absolute folly. When you govern based upon folly, don't expect anything other than folly from the citizenry.

 

When we talk about the transfer between a CG and a PT not being a sale, it often brings up mention of President Clinton not having 'sexual relations with that woman'. Technically true, but a lie nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not defending the use of the word 'donation'. Everything here doesn't have to be interpreted as a defense or an attack, you know.

 

Just pointing out the fact that the MMMAct and the Judiciary's collective interpretation of it are seen by many in our community absolute folly. When you govern based upon folly, don't expect anything other than folly from the citizenry.

 

When we talk about the transfer between a CG and a PT not being a sale, it often brings up mention of President Clinton not having 'sexual relations with that woman'. Technically true, but a lie nonetheless.

 

No kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I offered protective advice. People saw it as an attack. Probably because it went against what they wanted. If you haven't noticed most of what I post on this forum has to do with keeping people out of trouble. There will be those who want a wide open interpretation who will complain about my warnings. Oh well. I can't make people take advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of the word 'donation' is inaccurate and entirely senseless in this context. i expect it stems from some half aszed notion regarding the clause stating that the xfer with cost from a cg to a pt is not "the sale of a controlled substance." I take from that clause that such a transaction is indeed a sale, and to protect qualifying individuals we are exempt from the inclusion of the medical use of the commodity itself being regarded as a prosecuteable offense.

 

We have been through it time and again, and it appears there are people here without the gray matter to figure it out. Why else does anyone persist in this? I would really like to know if there is something I am missing, and if there are reasonable arguments to support that view.

 

Can anyone tell me why the term is so persistently used?

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, right now, the COA opinion rules, and that COA opinion allows for a CG to transfer to his registered five patients and to be compensated for this. The compensation specifically, by law, is not a sale. It is impossible for a CG to sell MMJ to one of his five patients...because the law says there is no such thing...no such thing as a sale between a CG and his five patients.

 

Transactions from p2p, p2CG, CG2CG, and CG to not-one-of-his-five can constitute a sale, if money or anything else of value is involved. Too many people think that using the word, "donation" suddenly makes all these transactions all better.

 

16 In addition, because the “medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana,

defendants are not entitled to receive compensation for the costs of assisting in the “sale” of

marihuana between CA members. See MCL 333.26424(e) (“A registered primary caregiver may

receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the

medical use of marihuana.”). Also, in regard to § 4(e), the parties disagree whether a registered

primary caregiver may receive compensation for the costs associated with assisting any

registered qualifying patient in the “medical use” of marihuana or whether a registered primary

caregiver may only receive compensation for assisting the qualifying patients with whom he or

she is connected through the MDCH registry process. Because of our conclusion that the

“medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana, we need not, and therefore

do not, resolve this dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 In addition, because the “medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana,

defendants are not entitled to receive compensation for the costs of assisting in the “sale” of

marihuana between CA members. See MCL 333.26424(e) (“A registered primary caregiver may

receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the

medical use of marihuana.”). Also, in regard to § 4(e), the parties disagree whether a registered

primary caregiver may receive compensation for the costs associated with assisting any

registered qualifying patient in the “medical use” of marihuana or whether a registered primary

caregiver may only receive compensation for assisting the qualifying patients with whom he or

she is connected through the MDCH registry process. Because of our conclusion that the

“medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana, we need not, and therefore

do not, resolve this dispute.

 

Perfect example of the legal bowl of crapola I'm talking about. Winks and nods all around.

 

I don't advise anyone to go outside these rulings, though. The safest path is to abide, clearly. It still doesn't mean that these decisons and some very narrow interpretations aren't based in complete silliness and refuses to deal with reality as most patients and cgs know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not trying to start or rekindle any debates or anything like that....

just keeping it simple..i have been thinking about it a lot these past few days....

 

some also say the COA decision said you can give cannabis away for free...

 

they specifically denied resolving that dispute as well.

 

they did however say in that same decision...

that compensation between a caregiver and a patient was protected.. that was not in dispute.

 

and further that McQueen did not claim a defense according to section 4(a) compensation for transfers between patient and caregiver but rather claimed a defense based on being in the vicinity of Medical Use 4(i)...

 

medical use does not include the ability to make a sale.

 

patient to caregiver compensation is not a sale.

call it a donation.. call it a payment for services rendered.. call it a consulting fee.. call it whatever you want.. Call it A + B = C

just don't try calling it a sale...

because it's not.

 

it will be interesting to see if the SC addresses any of our concerns in the upcoming decision on CA or if someone else will have to go through the proverbial grinder..

 

 

be aware anyone and everyone who reads this... i am defiantly not advocating making any kind of transfers outside of your specifically designated patient caregiver relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, thanks for the help. You all know we don't "sell" our medicine. I was simply wondering if anyone has calculated the cost and labor average of a gram of bho. Sorry I asked....

 

what would a grm of bho ad a grm of nice raspberry cough and maybe a 1/4 grm of keif to make it not sticky go for in your mind? If you are not a chronic oil or mm user this lil 1 1/2" oil roll go for? I bet it will last me at least one week of regular use, when I was younger I would get 30 a grm for bho, and the mm in the pic is 10 a gram, keif well its keif, I have never had to put a price on it.

 

The reason Im trying to make these lil rolls of bho and have them be non sticky, is to make it more usable for the pt's needs whether they want to put it in a capsul or smoke it, Trust me a lil slice will do ya,

 

now I bought a case of butane for 26 bucks, the duff was free from my c.g, and the buds well I either grew it or my c.g did! I would gladly pay 50 bucks for something that would last me a week, and it could be shared with other pt's(mecicating together, like me and my lady/pt) its to heavy for my lady,

 

Its winter time and im just trying to make what I like to use for my meds alot easier to use and be able to touch it w/o getting the sticky oil all over the place, if smoked, I usualy only do it in one glass pipe I keep just for that only!

 

100_1649.jpg

 

Peace

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not make the stuff. I was telling you overhead price is not stable amongst growers so BHO pricing is whatever they want it to be. It is no set amount.

 

To answer your question with bud and sct which is not dirt weed. I can make an ounce of the stuff for like 10 bucks. Keeping in mind no labor was added into the 10 bucks though.

 

I would like to see you make an oz with 10 bucks, show me a video, in fact sell me the video! no way no how! you did say butane, not alcohol! 3 botttles cost 10 bucks and you are not getting an oz out of 3 cans, but after you put 3 cans thru that 1/2 lb I will go spend 50 bucks and get what your supposed to out of it, 10 bucks for an oz, what a joke!

 

Peace

Jim

Edited by phaquetoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying to make the point clear that a transfer with compensation from a CG to one of his 5 patients is defined specifically and very differently than any other sort of transaction. People need to understand that. And contrary to what you posted, I don't think most people realize that this "donation" business is grade school legal advice at best.

 

Your analogy about the sky being blue doesn't apply. Laws define many words differently than Webster. "Primary Caregiver" for instance. The law says I'm a "caregiver." but I don't actually care about anyone - never have. Under your blue sky theory, I can't be a CG, because I just don't care.

 

Bro you may as well just give it up, he is gonna drag you right down the donkey hole street with him! Your a good guy, this guy comes out of no where, he complaints about peoples spellling and no one can get a word in edge wise with him, wish I knew his name, he maybe good in court, but than again, if he can tinkle me off im sure he can tinkle a judge off also!

 

Peace

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my tamesium extractor with all the fixin's cost me 10k+ out the door. I run 7.9 oz of material through it per run recycling 99.95% pure N-butane at 285.40/20lb tank+ 12/month tank rental fee. The N-butane Vessel carries 1500grams of N-butane and there is approx a 15-20% loss of total volume non-recoverable butane between extraction and carrier solvent for each run. I'd say it takes me 2 hours to fill the initial holding tank on my extractor and another hour to run it plus an additional 2 hours to recover the N-butane back into the holding tank. So about 6 minimum hours including setup and clean up time. Then there is the purging (heat/vac) and whipping. oh gosh. I'm just gonna say that I don't get paid enough for how much time and care I put into that part of the process. I have a service charge of an absolute minimum of 50/g. sometimes more. depends mostly on yield and quality of initial material. I have no idea what exactly it has cost me to produce said measurement, but I know how much I wanna get for it if I can. At that precision level of concentrate production, there is certainly a willingness by those whom can afford it to compensate me accordingly for my service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my tamesium extractor with all the fixin's cost me 10k+ out the door. I run 7.9 oz of material through it per run recycling 99.95% pure N-butane at 285.40/20lb tank+ 12/month tank rental fee. The N-butane Vessel carries 1500grams of N-butane and there is approx a 15-20% loss of total volume non-recoverable butane between extraction and carrier solvent for each run. I'd say it takes me 2 hours to fill the initial holding tank on my extractor and another hour to run it plus an additional 2 hours to recover the N-butane back into the holding tank. So about 6 minimum hours including setup and clean up time. Then there is the purging (heat/vac) and whipping. oh gosh. I'm just gonna say that I don't get paid enough for how much time and care I put into that part of the process. I have a service charge of an absolute minimum of 50/g. sometimes more. depends mostly on yield and quality of initial material. I have no idea what exactly it has cost me to produce said measurement, but I know how much I wanna get for it if I can. At that precision level of concentrate production, there is certainly a willingness by those whom can afford it to compensate me accordingly for my service.

 

Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!

 

and your using a way more expensive set up than me! so would be nice for that set up you have to pay for itself and a little more, Ive noticed since we got the law the pricing structure is way dif, and it dont have to be, First and foremost people with would like to get their investments back, If you are a c.g and fair with your pt's (fair is what ever c.g and pt decides and no one else)

 

I made some nice product with bho, ground budds(raspberry something) and a little keif to roll it in, I heat up the bho on a glass plate, (candle Holder) maybe a gram, because im experimenting, and right around a gram of of ground budd, after I heat the bho a lil bit to make it nice and lucid, I pour the the ground budd in it, I mix it up realy nice, and as its cooling I use a razor blade to scrape every thing into mid of plate, while im moving and mixing it I try to get like a long roll, round about pencil size(the size and amount is upto you) than once its in the middle I just leave it for about 30 minutes, When I go back to it , it is a whole lot less sticky and is getting a nice medium texture to it, kinda like puddy! Than I take a lil bit of keif, not much just enough to spread it on the whole role, I used about a 1/4 gram, I rolled it on the plate back and forth in the keif and well wound up with a kewl lil roll that is very potent and can be smoked, vaped, ingested, you could roll it up nice and pop it in a capsule if you dont want the taiste.

 

When You smoke it, it dont taiste a whole lot like honey oil, or the mm or the keif, it def has its own flavor to it, after 2 good puff (ones that stay in and dont make me cough a loung out) you feel it wash over you, 4 puffs and put it down, you may want to not do 4 puffs, after the 2 see how your doing,

 

Many of you have seen my lil oil keeper and dif stuff i use, I already have a pic of this up some where,(shoot maybe in here, but look at the roll, it actualy stands up when you use the amount i used, im thinkin i can get a week of meds out of it, now what would that be worth to pts out there? I too know what id like to get In compansation for this! (my only prob is my only pt is my lady so im not gonna get paid lmao in fact it cost me lots)

 

100_1647.jpg

100_1648.jpg

 

Peace

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...