Does An Expired Card Provide Section 4 Protections?

[peanutbutter]

Section four protections are provided when the patient has a card issued by the state.

 

What are the arguments that the card stops providing protection when it expires? The patient still has a card issued by the state.

[Highlander]

Isn't this addressed in the administrative rules? I haven't read them in awhile.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2013 by Highlander

[peanutbutter]

The law requires that the card is valid. Unexpired isn't valid.

 

Please quote where it says "valid."

 

Bill Schuette wanted that word added. He obviously thought it was an error to not have included the word "valid."

Edited January 24, 2013 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

LOL When have you EVER had anything that was expired and it wasn't? It has an EXPIRATION DATE.

[Highlander]

I edited my post because I think this is discussed in the rules.

 

[Highlander]

Rule 333.117

 

[peanutbutter]

So it's in the rules, but not the law?

[Restorium2]

So it's in the rules, but not the law?

It's in common sense and has been used by civilizations for quite some time now. You get a license with an expiration date. It's a contract. It expires. With our MM card, they made it so obvious they wrote it on the card. They tell you exactly when it expires. There are also rules that explain how and when it can be renewed.

[peanutbutter]

It's in common sense and has been used by civilizations for quite some time now. You get a license with an expiration date. It's a contract. It expires. With our MM card, they made it so obvious they wrote it on the card. They tell you exactly when it expires. There are also rules that explain how and when it can be renewed.

 

So the desire to have the word added by our AG was meaningless?

 

Without BS trying to "fix" this, I wouldn't have noticed.

 

It was so nice for him to present a list of those items he was worried about ..

Edited January 24, 2013 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

So the desire to have the word added by our AG was meaningless?

It's there for some folks that need some extra words to understand the card is worthless after the expiration date. Maybe he looked in his crystal ball and saw you bring this up and wanted to be sure you understand EXPIRED? Maybe he just wanted to say he did something? He made 15 pages of recommendations, some of them made it into the law.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Restorium2

[peanutbutter]

It's there for some folks that need some extra words to understand the card is worthless after the expiration date. Maybe he looked in his crystal ball and saw you bring this up and wanted to be sure you understand EXPIRED? Maybe he just wanted to say he did something? He made 15 pages of recommendations, some of them made it into the law.

 

THIS one didn't .. it's still there.

[Restorium2]

Here's one actual page from his suggestions. They use VALID all over the place. It's very common in the wording, both in the original act and the suggested changes;

 

 

[peanutbutter]

Nothing in section 4?

 

Since the authors knew of the word "valid" why did they leave it out of the entire section 4?

 

As a side note, where in the law does it give the courts the ability to invalidate a card?

Edited January 24, 2013 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

Nothing in section 4?

 

Since the authors knew of the word "valid" why did they leave it out of the entire section 4?

 

As a side note, where in the law does it give the courts the ability to invalidate a card?

It was a mistake by MPP. The intent of the state is clear when they put an expiration date right on the card. We know that the COA, MSP, AG, and the legislature, would plug a hole like that in a second. If there ever is a liberal circuit court judge that wants to let you use this hole, the COA would strike it down, the MSP would follow. You would go on a roller coaster ride, with a bad let down, after years of fighting.

[Restorium2]

As a side note, where in the law does it give the courts the ability to invalidate a card?

The court proves an issue. Then the state invalidates the card because the issue was grounds for disqualification, by the wording of the law.

[CaveatLector]

This is absurd. If Schuette wanted to add the word valid, it was likely to help clarify things. His opinion is that the law was poorly constructed, so naturally he would want to tighten it up. That would help eliminate ridiculous challenges like this. The intent of the law is clear and any reasonable person would understand that when the card expires it no longer provides protections.

 

Peanut's continual assertions that Schuette's opinions of the law somehow prove x, y, or z is nonsense. Schuette pushing to add the word valid does not mean that, as the law stands, the law allows for use of an expired card for protectons under section 4. Schuette also says each of a cg's patient's plants must be in separate locked facilities. Do you also believe THAT peanut? Why do you continually use Schuette's opinions as both a sword and a shield?

 

The law delegates authority to the department to promulgate administrative rules. For that reason the rules are generally valid and have the force and effect of law. Therefore, every single requirement need not be contained within the law itself. In fact, if you look at sections 5 and 6 in the law then you will see that authority was delegated to the department to deal with card renewals.

 

Lastly, look at the definition:

 

(i) "Registry identification card" means a document issued by the department that identifies a person as a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver.

 

When the card expires does it still identify someone as a registered QUALIFYING patient? Of course not. When the card expires it ceases to be a registry identification card because you are no longer a part of the registry.

[peanutbutter]

The court proves an issue. Then the state invalidates the card because the issue was grounds for disqualification, by the wording of the law.

 

That would be the denial of the application.

 

IN THE LAW where are judges allowed to invalidate an existing card? Such as a condition of bond, probation or parole?

Edited January 24, 2013 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

The law delegates authority to the department to promulgate administrative rules.

 

Does that mean that the department could simply make a rule that said no one is ever qualified to have a card?

I don't think so. My point being that rules can not conflict with the law itself.

 

Lastly, look at the definition:

 

(i) "Registry identification card" means a document issued by the department that identifies a person as a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver.

 

When the card expires does it still identify someone as a registered QUALIFYING patient? Of course not. When the card expires it ceases to be a registry identification card because you are no longer a part of the registry.

 

Now there's some meat. Thank you.

What I was wondering is what argument would be presented against the idea.

[CaveatLector]

That would be the denial of the application.

 

IN THE LAW where are judges allowed to invalidate an existing card? Such as a condition of probation or parole?

Who is saying that the judge, in probation/parole situations, is invalidating a card? A condition of probation or parole is just that, a condition to keep you out of jail on the underlying offense. If you use when the judge says don't use then you are violating probation, not a particular law. You can hold a valid card and still be ordered not to grow or use. If you are caught growing or using then probation could be revoked. That has nothing to do with the card. What if I have a valid driver license but am ordered not to drive as a condition of probation? If I drive I am not violating a state motor vehicle law I am violating probation. There is a difference.

[Restorium2]

That would be the denial of the application.

No. You asked about how the court disqualifies and I explained it to you. Here's an example of some ways you could be disquailified by the court and the state revokes your card;

 

 

Revocation of Registry Identification Card and Felony for Abuse:[Section 4(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.

[CaveatLector]

Does that mean that the department could simply make a rule that said no one is ever qualified to have a card?

I don't think so. My point being that rules can not conflict with the law itself.

 

 

An administrative rule that is promulgated pursuant to a delegation of authority is a valid rule. If the rule goes beyond what is allowed by statute then it is considered "ultra vires." That means it is going beyond the scope of authority delegated by the law. The rules at issue here do not appear to be ultra vires. The law specifically delegates authority to the dept. to promulgate rules in regard to renewals. See sections 5 and 6 of the MMA.

Edited January 24, 2013 by CaveatLector

[peanutbutter]

An administrative rule that is promulgated pursuant to a delegation of authority is a valid rule. If the rule goes beyond what is allowed by statute then it is considered "ultra vires." That means it is going beyond the scope of authority delegated by the law. The rules at issue here do not appear to be ultra vires. The law specifically delegates authority to the dept. to promulgate rules in regard to renewals. See sections 5 and 6 of the MMA.

 

Is there a rule that states a patient has no protections at all once the card expires?

 

Is there a rule that states judges can remove protections on a case by case basis?

[Restorium2]

Is there a rule that states judges can remove protections on a case by case basis?

Yup, posted it already. The judge rules and the state takes away the card.

[Restorium2]

Is there a rule that states a patient has no protections at all once the card expires?

 

 

Nope, because you would still have your section 8 protection if you qualify it in court.

 

Easy questions today peanut.

[peanutbutter]

Yup, posted it already. The judge rules and the state takes away the card.

 

So what LARA rule is that?

 

And does these rules negate what is plainly stated in the MMMA?