Can Caregivers Exchange Medicine With Eachother?

[Restorium2]

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

We don't JUST need Charlotte's Web. You can taylor many strains to do what that strain does. Charlotte's Web is lacking in a lot of areas that are medically important to most patients. Yet politicians are limiting legality in some places to only strains like Charlotte's Web. When someone comes here and asks for Charlotte's Web specifically it seems that they either have been sold on this one strain by folks that would profit from that, or they are part of the political movement to ruin medical cannabis for a lot of patients by limiting what they can use. Medical cannabis is always under attack from one front or another. Charlotte's Web is on both of the major front lines of the war right now.

 

The two front lines are;

 

1. Money interests trying to funnel patients' $$$ into their pockets with false information.

 

2. Politicians winning votes, and getting bribes, for kicking us patients around, creating monopolies for their friends and bribers, and severely limiting what we can do.

[bustedinclintontwsp]

the whole point is that marijuana is a gift from the god (second page of Christian bible). We don't need trademarks, coorporations  or any other BS surrounding it. We don't need guys like the stanleys exploiting childrens illnesses to make a buck THEY ARE REALITY TV GUYS, it goes against the whole medical rights movement. if I could make an epileptic childs life change.... I woukldn't be charging for it! I guess a million dollar dispensary isn't enough for some people

[chi_guy]

I've been reading through this thread and it seems to suggest that a cg may transfer to another cg or patient if the compensation goes toward his costs for assisting the patients he or she is connected to. Because the medical use is ultimately to benefit the C g's own patients. Can someone please explain or chime in on this

[Highlander]

The caregiver's action ( per the Supreme Court) must be for the purpose of alleviating his patient's debilitating condition. So it isn't about where the money goes or who the money benefits. It comes down the purpose of the transfer of the meds not the purpose of the transfer of money.

[trichcycler]

chi guy- you may transfer to your registered/connected five patients only. If the said caregiver was a registered patient of yours for instance, and all other rules are followed, you may transfer to that caregiver/patient of yours. that's the way I understand it.

[phaquetoo]

and you understand it Right! ^^^^^

 

Peace

[chi_guy]

Right highlander that was what I was getting at. The transaction is intended to benefit the caregivers own patients

[chi_guy]

The purpose of the med transfer is ultimately to benefit his own patients

[chi_guy]

For example say a caregiver has a cancer patient or a severe pain patient that needs large quantities of med school in order to get by. However this patient is poor and cannot compensate you much for the med not even enough to cover your costs. Would the transfer of meds to someone who can afford it to cover your costs for the cancer patient fall under 4d according to the Supreme courts definition

[Highlander]

This sort of angle was attempted by the attorneys for McQueen in the supreme court, and the court more or less shut it down, looking for a direct benefit.

[trichcycler]

nah, they could have gifted the patient the money to afford their own medicines. The transfer from you to a patient in your registry is unlawful.(edit for senseless dribble. The transfer form you to  a patient outside of your registry is unlawful(that's better) sorry.

 The transfer of those meds from that person to one of your five patient would also be unlawful(according to the state of course). Your five patients seem to be protected when they procure from anywhere, to alleviate their own symptoms.

For example say a caregiver has a cancer patient or a severe pain patient that needs large quantities of med school in order to get by. However this patient is poor and cannot compensate you much for the med not even enough to cover your costs. Would the transfer of meds to someone who can afford it to cover your costs for the cancer patient fall under 4d according to the Supreme courts definition

Edited May 11, 2014 by grassmatch

[chi_guy]

nah, they could have gifted the patient the money to afford their own medicines. The transfer from you to a patient in your registry is unlawful. The transfer of those meds from that person to one of your five patient would also be unlawful(according to the state of course). Your five patients seem to be protected when they procure from anywhere, to alleviate their own symptoms.

 

 

Can someone please cite some case law as to why this is not an acceptable form of transfer. Please don't say McQueen because this position is based off McQueen. Unless there is something specific in McQueen that covers this.

[trichcycler]

you cannot transfer currently to more than your five patients, period.   If you attempt to register more than five patient, your change form will be denied. Every person found to be transferring to more than his own five patients, for any reason, has been arrested and  prosecuted.

when you sign your cg attestation, you are also promising to serve no more than the five people naming you as their cg. 

 

it sounds much like the "sell a patient a lighter, and gift an ounce" trial. good luck with that.  aint no money in doing it legal.

[Highlander]

From the McQueen SC ruling:

 

As a result, § 4 does not offer immunity to a registered qualifying patient who transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient, nor does it offer immunity to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana to anyone other than a registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration process.

 

This eliminates all CG to CG transfers, unless, of course, a CG transfers to his patient who is also a CG.  But then we're back to the position that the transfer must be for the purpose of treating the receiving person's condition.  In other words, there is no protection for a CG to transfer to his patient who is also a CG if the purpose of that transfer is for the second CG to transfer to other patients rather than use the meds as a patient to treat his own condition.

[chi_guy]

you cannot transfer currently to more than your five patients, period. If you attempt to register more than five patient, your change form will be denied. Every person found to be transferring to more than his own five patients, for any reason, has been arrested and prosecuted.

when you sign your cg attestation, you are also promising to serve no more than the five people naming you as their cg.

 

it sounds much like the "sell a patient a lighter, and gift an ounce" trial. good luck with that. aint no money in doing it legal.

It's actually not that scenario at all. It's a way cg can still assist someone who has little to no income without having to lose income to do so.

But thanks for the McQueen reference highlander. It sounds more like they are using 4b to block these type of scenarios.

[chi_guy]

This scenario still falls in line with the so called logic they used in the this ruling. The cg conduct is for helping the patients he is connected too and the receiving patients conduct is for his own medical use