Can Caregivers Exchange Medicine With Eachother?

[smarrs1]

Caregivers are allowed to acquire marijuana for their patients, but how and what exactly is that limited to? Can they only get seeds/clones? Or can they get the medicine they need for their patients through another caregiver? Like if they are between harvests? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

[t-pain]

as long as they are registered to each other via lara.

transfers of medibles, usable marijuana, plants, clones seeds, etc is all covered by section 4 as long as the two people transferring are registered to each other with that $10 form to lara.

 

otherwise only the buyer is protected. seller cg would be breaking 'connected patient' rule. so says the supreme court.

imo the court needs to rehear the issue.

Edited March 26, 2014 by t-pain

[AmishRnot4ganja]

It is legal for you to buy from anybody, but it is not legal for anybody to sell to you. That is one weird concept.

[t-pain]

the opponents of marijuana have twisted every law they can think of.

 

that decision is so crazy to read, check it yourself i think people v mcqueen opinion. our protection to transfer literally came down to the words 'a patient' and 'the patient' or 'a' and 'the'... obviously the supreme court made the wrong decision.

[bobandtorey]

as long as they are registered to each other via lara.

transfers of medibles, usable marijuana, plants, clones seeds, etc is all covered by section 4 as long as the two people transferring are registered to each other with that $10 form to lara.

 

otherwise only the buyer is protected. seller cg would be breaking 'connected patient' rule. so says the supreme court.

imo the court needs to rehear the issue.

 

 

 

transfers of meddles maybe  tricky  if caught doing so and could cost you $$$ for a Lawyer IMHO

[bobandtorey]

the opponents of marijuana have twisted every law they can think of.

 

that decision is so crazy to read, check it yourself i think people v mcqueen opinion. our protection to transfer literally came down to the words 'a patient' and 'the patient' or 'a' and 'the'... obviously the supreme court made the wrong decision.

 

 

I do believe the word The and  the letter A have been to the C.O.A with our case but i'am not sure if i know the out come my guess is the score from the C.O.A is still them against us we are losing 

[Highlander]

Careful with these "daisy chain" ideas.  The Supreme Court has said (more or less) that a patient's conduct with marijuana must for the purpose of alleviating his own condition.   Chief Justice Young posed the question "How is the giver's pain alleviated by transferring marijuana to another patient?"

 

Similarly, a caregiver's conduct with marijuana must be for the purpose of alleviating his own patient's condition. 

 

So take the scenario where caregiver A has a patient, caregiver(patient) B, who is a caregiver to patient C.  If caregiver transfers to caregiver(patient)B for the purpose of alleviating caregiver(patient)B's condition, then the transfer is in compliance with the supreme court's rule. 

 

But if caregiver A transfers to caregiver(patient)B for the purpose of alleviating patient C's condition, the caregiver had conduct with marijuana that was not for the purpose of alleviating his own patient's condition.

 

Under the current view of the Supreme Court, caregivers have just about no chance of defending a "daisy chain" transfer.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Highlander

[Restorium2]

Careful with these "daisy chain" ideas.  The Supreme Court has said (more or less) that a patient's conduct with marijuana must for the purpose of alleviating his own condition.   Chief Justice Young posed the question "How is the giver's pain alleviated by transferring marijuana to another patient?"

 

Similarly, a caregiver's conduct with marijuana must be for the purpose of alleviating his own patient's condition. 

 

So take the scenario where caregiver A has a patient, caregiver(patient) B, who is a caregiver to patient C.  If caregiver transfers to caregiver(patient)B for the purpose of alleviating caregiver(patient)B's condition, then the transfer is in compliance with the supreme court's rule. 

 

But if caregiver A transfers to caregiver(patient)B for the purpose of alleviating patient C's condition, the caregiver had conduct with marijuana that was not for the purpose of alleviating his own patient's condition.

 

Under the current view of the Supreme Court, caregivers have just about no chance of defending a "daisy chain" transfer.

And since there would be no reason to have a daisy chain other than to transfer beyond 5, then it's quite useless and impossible to defend after you have created the chain. In other words, just being part of the chain, on record, might cause you to be investigated if any part of the chain were to be discovered.

[jeff from bad axe]

Go to. Ann Arbor dispensary they will sell you anything you want.

[phaquetoo]

1st im a pt with a c.g,  2nd im a c.g to 1 pt,  my c.g has my grow rights and can legaly bring ME clones,seeds or cured mm for ME and my chronic pain,

 

When my c.g brings me meds, clones, seeds, or vegged plants I can transfer some to my pt for her qualifying condition (meds only) I dont have my own grow rights and my pt dont have her grow rights, My c.g has my grow rights and I have my pt's grows rights,

 

my c.g knows my qualifying condition, I know my pt's qualifying condition, I only have 1 pt, my c.g has less than 5, im not sure how many at this time, its not realy my biz, but he does follow the law, I would say if he wasnt he wouldnt be working outside the home at this time, none of this is about money, if it were, I would have 5 pts one in each county connected to me and they would have a pt/c.g connected to them and so on and so on!

 

That was my original plan was to be connected thru out the state, but not for $ but so pts could get what they needed as far as strains, or maybe freebies because they couldnt afford something, one of us would have meds we could get off of to help a pt in need lol, a friend with weed is a friend indeed!

 

The plan was to also cut off the middle man (despesarys at the time were up and running every where) our statuses as pt/c.g's has been this way for 4yrs now, no problems and I dont need to knock on wood!  We are not doing anything ilegal or im positive lara wouldnt keep renewing us as we are!  or some one would have gotten busted doing something wrong if they were, I mean we read every day about some one getting busted who is suposedly legal dont we?

 

This arangement works out real well for my pt, me and my c.g!

 

Peace

[Highlander]

Phaque, here is what the supreme court said in the McQueen ruling:

 

(3) To be eligible for § 4 immunity, a registered primary caregiver must be
engaging in marijuana-related conduct for the purpose of alleviating the debilitating
medical condition, or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, of a
registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the registration
process of the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH).

 

So your CG can legally supply you with meds for your own use, but if you say, "Hey CG I need you to give me meds so I can give them to my lady/patient" then his transfer is no longer for the purpose of alleviating YOUR condition, and he loses Sec. 4 protection for that transfer.

 

There are plenty of scenarios where a patient can be a CG and have a CG where the above scenario doesn't come into play - thus LARA's justification to register reciprical patient/CG relationships such as yours.  For example, you can transfer 2.5 oz of meds, some clones, and whatever number of incidental seeds to your CG as a back-up/for safe-keeping.  That transfer would be for the purpose of alleviating your condition.  If you had no CG, you would not have anyone to turn to who could keep the meds. clones, and seeds for you.

[snarkler]

I've always thought an argument could made under People v McQueen and other decisions for two way transfers or trades by cg's where the trade would be argued to be an effort by each cg to alleviate his own patient's condition by obtaining say a different strain than his own cg grows.  Cg A could grow strain A, CG B strain B, and both of their patients would benefit by a swap of A for B who would now have access to both strains A and B. If that argument flies, it could be extended to trading x ounces of meds now for x ounces of meds in the future to cover gaps in crops, or even x ounces for y ounces of another strain, as who is to say where value lies to each patient.

 

Not saying I would rely on this as a game plan, but it is an argument that might work on a small scale basis.  When the Supremes pick a phrase out of a statute or even one of their own making and announce it to be the new controlling standard, as in finding that the transfer must benefit each cg's own patient, the best judicial remedy they leave is to try to use that phrase as a tool, as in arguing other transactions do benefit both patients.

[Highlander]

I've always thought an argument could made under People v McQueen and other decisions for two way transfers or trades by cg's where the trade would be argued to be an effort by each cg to alleviate his own patient's condition by obtaining say a different strain than his own cg grows.  Cg A could grow strain A, CG B strain B, and both of their patients would benefit by a swap of A for B who would now have access to both strains A and B. If that argument flies, it could be extended to trading x ounces of meds now for x ounces of meds in the future to cover gaps in crops, or even x ounces for y ounces of another strain, as who is to say where value lies to each patient.

 

Not saying I would rely on this as a game plan, but it is an argument that might work on a small scale basis.  When the Supremes pick a phrase out of a statute or even one of their own making and announce it to be the new controlling standard, as in finding that the transfer must benefit each cg's own patient, the best judicial remedy they leave is to try to use that phrase as a tool, as in arguing other transactions do benefit both patients.

 

Yes I agree that there is an argument there.  In fact I posted this same idea in 2009.  The idea being that you have two CGs and maybe one has a great sativa and the other a great indica.  CG "A" says, "the only way I'll give you my clones if if you give me yours."  And CG "B" says, "The only way I'll give you my clones is if you give me yours." 

 

That way, there is at least some argument that the transfer was for the purpose of alleviating each CG's respective patient.

[phaquetoo]

I dont do any exchanges with my c.g other than recieving mm for me, once I have it I can and do share with my pt and their is nothing ilegal about it, even the law you copied and paisted highlander cant apply to me or my pt or c.g, we are not doing anything ilegal, I can only take care of my pt, my c.g can not, he can only take care of his pts, and I am one of them, if me and my pt use the same type of mm and I give her meds that my c.g gave me it is totaly legal, Im getting it to my pt for her qualifying condition, my c.g is getting it to me for my qualifying condition, c.g to c.g here can not happen legaly, meaning I can not get any to my c.g but he can get it to me, and I can get it to my pt!

 

we are not doing anything ilegal in these kind of transfers, now if my c.g was getting it to my pt directly he would be breaking the law but my pt would be fine, that dont happen any how in our situation, I may donate some equipment or cash to my c.g but no seeds, no meds and no clones, he can only deliver them to me legaly!

 

Peace

[Highlander]

I dont do any exchanges with my c.g other than recieving mm for me, once I have it I can and do share with my pt and their is nothing ilegal about it, even the law you copied and paisted highlander cant apply to me or my pt or c.g, we are not doing anything ilegal, I can only take care of my pt, my c.g can not, he can only take care of his pts, and I am one of them, if me and my pt use the same type of mm and I give her meds that my c.g gave me it is totaly legal, Im getting it to my pt for her qualifying condition, my c.g is getting it to me for my qualifying condition, c.g to c.g here can not happen legaly, meaning I can not get any to my c.g but he can get it to me, and I can get it to my pt!

 

we are not doing anything ilegal in these kind of transfers, now if my c.g was getting it to my pt directly he would be breaking the law but my pt would be fine, that dont happen any how in our situation, I may donate some equipment or cash to my c.g but no seeds, no meds and no clones, he can only deliver them to me legaly!

 

Peace

 

Yes I generally agree with what you are saying but if you tell your CG "I need you to give me meds so I can give  them to my pt," then your CG didn't transfer for the purpose of alleviating your condition.

[phaquetoo]

ok agreed lol!

 

Peace

 

edit= I realy do agree with you, when I was new to the new program lol, I most def thought of these things a little different, but Im grounded again and Im realy not trying to pull anything off, if that was the case I would just go back underground,,,,im getting to old for that poop!

Edited March 27, 2014 by phaquetoo

[Highlander]

ok agreed lol!

 

Peace

It comes down to that loose lips thing.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Highlander

[bustedinclintontwsp]

they r full of bunny muffin. convict every1 o a coa ruling sales are illegal. then sales are legal. this is a CIVIL case. it addresses paitent to paitent 3rd party sales... they are having trouble getting around sect 8. and there are like 20 different types of sales that need to be reviwed. that sales are illegal statement is as silly as the marijuana is iklegal under federal law IRV ROSENFILED

the opponents of marijuana have twisted every law they can think of.

 

that decision is so crazy to read, check it yourself i think people v mcqueen opinion. our protection to transfer literally came down to the words 'a patient' and 'the patient' or 'a' and 'the'... obviously the supreme court made the wrong decision.

[trichcycler]

 whenever a patient and/or their registered caregiver transfer marijuana  it must be for the relief of the patients' symptoms. so be it.

or, when a patient or their caregiver is asked why the transfer took place, they must both answer that it was for the alleviation of patient symptoms, to avoid legal issues. so be it. seems really stupid simple. I bet it's not forbidden in the Act, and not an oversight either=voter intent?

[SnyderAringdon]

I am interested to know if there are any restrictions on obtaining strains from out-of-state growers and/or dispensaries, particularly from legal states. There is a strain originating in Colorado that I am interested in obtaining for patients.

 

Oh, and I just returned to the MMMA today after something like 2 years away. Hello!

[trichcycler]

prob could be the transfer without registration in your own state? or transporting the plants? good luck

[AmishRnot4ganja]

I am interested to know if there are any restrictions on obtaining strains from out-of-state growers and/or dispensaries, particularly from legal states. There is a strain originating in Colorado that I am interested in obtaining for patients.

 

Oh, and I just returned to the MMMA today after something like 2 years away. Hello!

There are no restrictions on you in Michigan other than plant count. You can possess practically any amount of seeds. The problems arise when trying to get the material from Colorado to Michigan. Maybe you could get someone in Colorado to mail seeds?

[bustedinclintontwsp]

stay away from charlottes web... this is not what we need... its just politics and trademarks...

I am interested to know if there are any restrictions on obtaining strains from out-of-state growers and/or dispensaries, particularly from legal states. There is a strain originating in Colorado that I am interested in obtaining for patients.

 

Oh, and I just returned to the MMMA today after something like 2 years away. Hello!

[Ezrah]

Yeah a out of state transfer is not a great idea, nothing in the law outlining that so you could become a lucky test case, and good luck with that, not a nice welcome home gift.

[Candee]

stay away from charlottes web... this is not what we need... its just politics and trademarks...

Can you explain more about this? Just curious. (It's all politics as far as I'm concerned lol)