Jump to content

Criminal Risk For Family In Patient's Home


vizunaldth

Recommended Posts

I have a wife and young son.  My wife has nothing to do with my use of cannabis other than knowing me, using for cancer and epilepsy(from the radio treatments).  I have a grow room downstairs.  my son doesn't use either.  

 

what's the risk to my wife and her hard-earned career for me growing in my own home?  what about the kid?  personal use only, no patients but might down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

feds could seize your house. very low probability.

cps could take your kids. its happened before, look at steve and maria greene story in 2013. low probability.

they could catch you on some technicality and take you to court for years, possibly bankrupting you/family. look at bob and larry. low probability if you secure the grow.

 

have to weigh the risk with the risk of your non-marijuana medication.

takes a while to get over the risk nagging you. thats why we are so passionate when helping patients who are in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the above can happen but if they cant find you the chance of this happening to you is greatly reduced filters to keep down the smell and keep the traffic to your house at a minimum and keep your status to yourself people tend to get jealous and do dumb things to get back at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what he said ^^^^

 

come on tpain you have to scare the hell out of the guy?  dont tell people your business, dont share your meds with no one you dont trust with your life, and keep living period,  there are 1000's of people who have had no problems compared to one of the names mentioned above!  dont swet it!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truth hurts phaque.

 

theres also felony firearm , sometimes tacked onto patients charges if you have a gun.

sometimes they charge the wife and try to get the husband to plead out in order to get wifes charges dropped.

 

 

Yup i agree it can and still does happen but most cannabis growers and users still don't believe it i get calls from the front lines all the time

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 statistically, NOBODY is getting arrested while following the Act rules.  

how do you mean?

 

Thanks for the info folks.  A lot of my family know and two friends assisting with the build, I don't know if I should be concerned.

 

I lost function of left arm so I can only lend A hand with anything  I'm treating/managing brain cancer and epilepsy.  so far looks like cannabis is giving the tumor he!!. Most recent scan had my that showed the new tumor spot prior was gone after about two mo!! I'll quit chemo if the chanes asre in portion to the longer canna treatmrnt this round.  

 

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grassmatch means there are about 140,000 patients in michigan and only maybe 1000 of them have gotten into trouble so far. (these are guesstimate numbers, i dont have hard numbers.)

 

i think i didnt clarify your question 100%

the mmma protects any regular person from being prosecuted merely for being around you.

i've only heard of one case of a patients wife being bothered because she wrote a note on her husbands plant. i wonder how that case is doing now? anyone remember it?

 

its very very rare for regular people to be charged for a patients use if they are not transferring marijuana or anything like that.

 

building grow rooms, inspecting grow room, hooking up plumbing or A/C or power, etc are all 100% protected from charges imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Act Rules, as dictated on the MI.gov website. These are the 'rules" of the Act to follow. There are rules within the act that one must abide in order to enjoy the freedoms and privileges it provides while being protected from arrest. My patient was pulled over recently(tail light) with my awesomely packaged cannabis and was told he had a "tight" caregiver after showing the officer his delivery pack. neatly heat sealed, window, gusseted smell proof bags with MI law, patient name, strain, weight, and date packaged pre printed on the bag, the officer was impressed and immediately allowed him to go free after showing him his card!. That was in St Clair County if interested, and exactly the way I expect an officer to conduct himself. Its good to grow in MI !

 

http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,4601,7-154-35299_63294_63303_51869_52138---,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grassmatch means there are about 140,000 patients in michigan and only maybe 1000 of them have gotten into trouble so far. (these are guesstimate numbers, i dont have hard numbers.)

 

i think i didnt clarify your question 100%

the mmma protects any regular person from being prosecuted merely for being around you.

i've only heard of one case of a patients wife being bothered because she wrote a note on her husbands plant. i wonder how that case is doing now? anyone remember it?

 

its very very rare for regular people to be charged for a patients use if they are not transferring marijuana or anything like that.

 

building grow rooms, inspecting grow room, hooking up plumbing or A/C or power, etc are all 100% protected from charges imo.

If I am not mistaken, the Act specifically states that no one can be prosecuted for being around medical marijuana.

 

 

 

(f) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

© A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

 

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

The law seems to be pretty clear about this.

 

The part about "assisting a registered patient..." seems kind of broad. Does anyone care to speculate what "assisting ... with using or administering marijuana" means?

 

For example, someone who is home bound needs to get some MMJ so they send someone out to procure marijuana. Would the obtainee be considered to be "assisting...in the use" of marijuana?

Edited by Chauncy Gardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part about "assisting a registered patient..." seems kind of broad. Does anyone care to speculate what "assisting ... with using or administering marijuana" means?

 

 

No speculation needed.  Early on, we had people on this site (or its former version) believing that growing MMJ or selling MMJ is "assisting with using or administering."  I even talked to an attorney at the Genesee County Compassion Club in 2009 who believed that "assisting with using or administering" allowed for sales between "a person" (any person - carded/certified or not) and a patient.  It always seemed like a real stretch in my view.

 

Here is what the Court of Appeals said in people vs. McQueen published opinion  (may be transcription errors from PDF file)

 

Under § 4(i), A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege . . . solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana. [MCL 333.26424(i) (emphasis added).] The word “or” is a disjunctive term. People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 499; 803 NW2d 200 (2011). It indicates a choice between two alternatives. Paris Meadows, LLC v City of Kentwood, 287 Mich App 136, 148; 783 NW2d 133 (2010). Thus, § 4(i) provides immunity to two distinct persons: (1) to the person who is “in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana” and (2) to the person who is “assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.” Defendants do not claim immunity on the basis of being in the vicinity of the medical use of marijuana; they claim immunity on the basis of their assistance to registered qualifying patients with “using or administering” marijuana. According to defendants, they assist registered qualifying patients with using or administering marijuana when they transfer marijuana between CA members.

 

The MMMA does not define the phrase “using or administering” marijuana. Importantly, the phrase cannot be given the same definition as the “medical use” of marijuana. The inclusion of the phrase “medical use” in the vicinity-clause of § 4(i) and its omission and the presence of the phrase “using or administering” in the assistance-clause must be viewed as intentional. See People v Barrera, 278 Mich App 730, 741-742; 752 NW2d 485 (2008) (“The omission of a provision in one part of a statute that is included in another should be construed as intentional, and provisions not included by the [drafters of the statute] should not be included by the courts.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the phrase “using or administering” marijuana must be given a meaning distinct from the definition of the “medical use” of marijuana. Operation of CA involves the selling of marijuana, and because the selling of marijuana is not permitted by the MMMA, we need not, and do not, reach the issue whether the MMMA permits uncompensated patient-to-patient conveyances of marijuana.

 

Because the word “administering” is grouped with the word “using,” the two words must be given related meaning. See Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637, 650; 753 NW2d 48 (2008) (stating that words grouped in a list must be given related meaning). The word “use” is included in the definition of the “medical use” of marijuana. MCL 333.26423(e). Accordingly, we hold that whatever the phrase “using or administering” marijuana means, the phrase has a more limited meaning than that of the “medical use” of marijuana.

 

The word “use” has numerous dictionary definitions, as does the word “administer.” However, each word has a definition that relates directly to controlled substances or medicines, and we find those definitions to be the most relevant. To “use” means “to drink, smoke, or ingest habitually: to use drugs.” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1996). To “administer” means “to give or apply: to administer medicine.” Id. This definition of “administer” is consistent with the PHC definition of “administer.” The PHC defines “administer” as “the direct application of a controlled substance, whether by injection, inhalation, ingestion, or other means, to the body of a patient or research subject by a practitioner . . . .” MCL 333.7103(1). Employing these definitions, we hold that a person assists a registered qualifying patient with “using or administering” marijuana when the person assists the patient in preparing the marijuana to be consumed in any of the various ways that marijuana is commonly consumed or by physically aiding the patient in consuming the marijuana.

 

In this case, defendants, through the operation of CA, participate in the sale of marijuana between CA members. There is no evidence that defendants assist patients in preparing the marijuana to be consumed. Likewise, there is no evidence that defendants physically aid the purchasing patients in consuming marijuana. Because defendants are engaged in the selling of marijuana, which is not assistance with the “using or administering” of marijuana, defendants are not entitled to the immunity granted by § 4(i).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again 

So following the Act/Rules are harder then some may think ?

rephrase- So following the Act/Rules are harder for some than you may think.

The vast majority have no issue at all with

the law while abiding by the rules of this act. To make it out to be some sort of trap

to the newly registered sick is a disservice to the ill I think. imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Act Rules, as dictated on the MI.gov website. These are the 'rules" of the Act to follow. There are rules within the act that one must abide in order to enjoy the freedoms and privileges it provides while being protected from arrest. My patient was pulled over recently(tail light) with my awesomely packaged cannabis and was told he had a "tight" caregiver after showing the officer his delivery pack. neatly heat sealed, window, gusseted smell proof bags with MI law, patient name, strain, weight, and date packaged pre printed on the bag, the officer was impressed and immediately allowed him to go free after showing him his card!. That was in St Clair County if interested, and exactly the way I expect an officer to conduct himself. Its good to grow in MI !

 

http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,4601,7-154-35299_63294_63303_51869_52138---,00.html

 

 

Just because your patient did not get arrested does not mean it works out so well for others especially growers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the only thing left is to compare the number of those registered having no legal issues, to those in the program with legal issues. Then, explore the rules that those participants were no following for a clear picture of just how many people following the rules are actually hassled.

 

Of course this example is just one of thousands of daily transactions, all legal, and protected. I cant speak for any but those I know of, and the example was a good one worthy of report, considering the county eh?

 

how many in the program?

how many arrested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thecompassionchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/Fiscal-Year-2013-MM-statistics.pdf

The report lists 63,628 renewal applications and 70,262 new applications for medical marijuana registry identification cards received during FY 2013. Those numbers include both patient applications and caregiver applications and they total 133,890; in a companion report, issued December 4, the actual number of patients and caregivers registered in Michigan is 145,414.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thecompassionchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/Fiscal-Year-2013-MM-statistics.pdf

 

The report lists 63,628 renewal applications and 70,262 new applications for medical marijuana registry identification cards received during FY 2013. Those numbers include both patient applications and caregiver applications and they total 133,890; in a companion report, issued December 4, the actual number of patients and caregivers registered in Michigan is 145,414.

Well once again i can say that the Law one of 08 should work for all not some and some county's and some towns and some city's but all of Michigan people's / the sick and caregivers 

 

this is only my opinion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short answer is that if you dot your i's and cross your t's, keeping comfortably within the limits of the state law, you are golden. The first rule, already mentioned, is to not tell anyone anything they don't need to know.

 

All the best to you and your family, and especially to your continuing good health.

Edited by GregS
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...